Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[Hussar]

Purely hypothetically.....

If there was one guy out there somewhere that didn't let the rules use them and refused to be a blind slave to random encounter tables, would you concede that this example is completely moot to this one odd person?

Actually BryonD, I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

Are you saying that no one ever used a SoD monster in a random encounter table? Or that no adventure ever bombed the party with a SoD creature without warning?

Cos, if that's what you're saying, you'd be wrong. Heck, besides the bodak assassins in Savage Tide, there is an encounter with a basilisk with no warning, and no possibility of warning either.

Reaction rolls.

The encounter with the medusa is random; so is her reaction to the PCs (perhaps modified by Charisma?). My favourite table is from B/X (I use it for my 4E game); the chance of the medusa just deciding to stone everyone without any attempt to parley is slim. More likely she'll show up with a mask and engage in dialogue.

And if the reaction is negative? After all, it's perfectly possible. I can't recall the exact table you're talking about (although I do remember it exists) but the chances for negative reactions are about the same as positive ones IIRC.

Never mind a medusa, how about a basilisk then?

 

[Ariosto]

"I'm tired of fast food."
"Me too. Let's chat up this 'metal armored and carrying treasure' dish."

Lost Soul, is that the Monster Reaction table at B24? The original (D&D Vol. 1 Men & Magic) context, curiously, was that of the Retainer Reaction table at B21. The 1/36 chance of attack thus assumed that the monsters
(a) were of the same basic alignment as the player-character, and
(b) had been offered some reward ("not just sparing its life, for example")

I suspect many people have used that for general monster encounters, but there is actually a more general one in Volume 3:
2-5 negative reaction
6-8 uncertain reaction
9-12 positive reaction

Unfortunately, however, that comes after a note that "monsters will automatically attack and/or pursue any characters they 'see', with the exception of those monsters which are intelligent enough to avoid an obviously superior force."

I guess about a decade of chasing delvers was enough to mellow the monsters a bit!

 

[LostSoul]

And if the reaction is negative? After all, it's perfectly possible. I can't recall the exact table you're talking about (although I do remember it exists) but the chances for negative reactions are about the same as positive ones IIRC.

Never mind a medusa, how about a basilisk then?

It is the table on page B24 of the Basic D&D book; on a 2 on 2d6 it's "Immediate Attack". The rest of the results tend towards hostile (in my reading) but leave opportunities for talky-talk.

I guess about a decade of chasing delvers was enough to mellow the monsters a bit!

Heh, I guess so! I like that reaction table; it's simple but powerful. That's why I stole it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I figured that would come up.

Well you should have.

Now, is it good encounter design to have an invisible thief sneak into the character's room, without any warning, and cdg him in his sleep?

Because that's what putting a medusa on a random encounter table basically works out to.

Only if you assume that the creatures on your encounter table don't have a "footprint" in the area they wander. If you remember your own random encounter with a wandering SoD creature (which you mentioned above), not only did the creature's "footprint" make itself known (by the actions of the locals), but the encounter offered some real regional verisimilitude. Likewise, if a medusa is wandering the ruins, there will be signs that something is wandering the ruins capable of petrification. You might not know exactly what, and it might actually be a red herring (old statues in ruins), but she cannot avoid leaving clues.


RC

 

[LostSoul]

There is something I like - for a certain type of game - about knowing that, every once in a while, you are going to get screwed.

I don't know why. Maybe it helps get rid of overplanning? "There is a chance that we'll turn the corner and a basilisk will stone us, so we don't need to obsess about every little choice we make." Maybe that's it, or part of it, I don't know. Maybe I just like Rogue-like games!

 

[Hussar]

and it might actually be a red herring (old statues in ruins), but she cannot avoid leaving clues.

And we're back to the idea that every medusa is stupid. She can't "avoid" leaving clues? Really? She doesn't have a hammer? While it might be obvious to see strange statues around, seeing broken rubble in caverns generally isn't going to arouse suspicion.

I simply disagree with your presumption that every creature, particularly an intelligent one that is as intelligent as humans, would be so careless as to announce its presence everywhere it goes. Basilisk? Sure, I can see that, unless, of course, it actually eats stone (or it's a more mythological one where you burst into flames), but a medusa? It's not stupid. Why would it announce its presence.

 

[Fifth Element]

I simply disagree with your presumption that every creature, particularly an intelligent one that is as intelligent as humans, would be so careless as to announce its presence everywhere it goes. Basilisk? Sure, I can see that, unless, of course, it actually eats stone (or it's a more mythological one where you burst into flames), but a medusa? It's not stupid. Why would it announce its presence.

That's a good point that I hadn't really considered before. It's certainly a blow to verisimilitude if these monsters leave clues around when they can avoid it. I can see a certain amount from a dramatic license sort of view, but every intelligent SoD monster doesn't realize that these clues are dead giveaways?

 

[BryonD]

And we're back to the idea that every medusa is stupid. She can't "avoid" leaving clues? Really? She doesn't have a hammer? While it might be obvious to see strange statues around, seeing broken rubble in caverns generally isn't going to arouse suspicion.

Shrug. Big shrug.

I've never thought of the original Medusa of myth as being particularly stupid. But everyone knew where she was. That is part of the myth itself.

I really think you are failing to grasp that concept. Which is FINE, if you don't want to play that way. But, trust us, there is a preference which is different than yours.

I can most certainly imagine of a medusa example in which much care is taken to disguise her presence. And the level appropriateness of this scenario is probably higher. But, the hammer idea just seems to be going around your elbow to get to your ear. To even bring such up just re-SCREAMS "we play radically different games with fundamentally different goals, values, and presumptions."

And yet again, that is the true conclusion.

 

[billd91]

And we're back to the idea that every medusa is stupid. She can't "avoid" leaving clues? Really? She doesn't have a hammer? While it might be obvious to see strange statues around, seeing broken rubble in caverns generally isn't going to arouse suspicion.

I simply disagree with your presumption that every creature, particularly an intelligent one that is as intelligent as humans, would be so careless as to announce its presence everywhere it goes.

Depends. Is the medusa going to be better at hiding her presence than the PC with survival is in reading the signs that she's there (smashing up a statue into completely unrecognizable rubble is harder than it sounds)? Sounds like an opposed skill check. But I'd agree with RC that any creature is going to leave an impact on the environment around them, not every PC is going to be astute enough to read those signs though.

 

[MrMyth]

Shrug. Big shrug.

I've never thought of the original Medusa of myth as being particularly stupid. But everyone knew where she was. That is part of the myth itself.

I really think you are failing to grasp that concept.

I'm not sure that's so. The problem here is that people are talking in extremes.

Hussar isn't saying that you don't have mythic creatures whose presence is known, I don't think. He may well consider that possible. He may even consider it typical.

That doesn't mean it is universally true.

An argument keeps getting made that seems to return to the theme that every SoD encounter has warning flags. That might be true, sometimes. But there are other times when it won't be true. Whether for mechanical reasons - the SoD monster just happens to be on a random encounter table. Or for incidental reasons - a Wizard might have a SoD memorized, and the DM didn't somehow 'prep' the party with full awareness of his spellbook. Or even for thematic reasons - maybe there is an evil villain who likes to keep his pet basilisk a surprise, or an assassin who likes the element of surprise, or any number of other possibilities.

Insisting that there is a 'footprint' for every encounter - that the DM needs to leave signs for every possible creature on a random encounter table, that there isn't one possible thematic reason for a creature's presence to not be known before the fight - is the sort of extreme that Hussar - and myself, and probably others - are objecting to.

I'm sure there are DMing styles where that is true. I suspect there are many more DMs for whom it is often true, but certainly not universal. And there are plenty of other games where it may not be often true, whether for roleplaying or mechanical reasons or the challenge of it or otherwise.

Regardless, I simply don't think its fair to dismiss it as people 'not getting it' when all we are really doing is objecting to the absolutism of the claim.