Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[Hussar]

Sigh, I broke one of my own rules. Never post when grumpy.

I understand what you're saying RC, now, please, try to understand a few things.

1. I completely disagree with your basic assumption in that knowledge is "very very often" in the hands of the players. While it might be true sometimes, I think that "very, very often" is actually closer to "very, very rarely".

2. I've repeatedly stated that your approach will work. I stated above that there were basically three options here - ignore the problem, signpost the problem, or change the mechanics and take the problem away. You're the only one trying to convince anyone that the other options do not exist.

3. Your examples are becoming increasingly ludicrous. In your game, I can go to a sage or two and discover specific spells in a wizard's spellbook? Really? Spend some gold and I get to read the table of contents on Mordenkainen's spellbook? I don't think so. I really don't believe any DM would actually allow this in a game. (watch, now someone will pop up to say they've done it. )

4. We've been around on this issue more than once and we're just talking past each other. I understand what you're saying. I just don't think you do. I believe your basic assumptions about game play are entirely faulty and beyond any reasonable stretch of believability. In other words, I think you've constructed this imaginary game table that in no way actually looks like a real game table, in order to "prove" yourself right. Instead of taking a more realistic view of what game play looks like, you have this table where information flow is unrealistically high. So, yes, I think your model is a very bad idea. But, then again, I could be wrong. IF the players are in possession of the facts, and IF you signpost as hard as you are claiming (the players will have information available very, very often), then your method would certainly work.

It's not something I want to do, but, hey, if it works for you, go to it.

-------------------

Ok, that's enough from me. I'm bowing out and I've said my piece. Please, STOP referring to me. It's pretty obvious that there are others who have come to the same (or similar) conclusions that I have, so, argue with them. Leave me out of it and stop complaining that I've somehow skewed people's views of your point. Just please, stop referring to me in this thread.

Thank you.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I understand what you're saying RC

Do you?

I completely disagree with your basic assumption in that knowledge is "very very often" in the hands of the players.

I guess not. This is not a basic assumption I am making.

Pursuit of knowledge is in the hands of the players. Very, very often in a well-run game that pursuit has the potential to bear fruit.

I made no claim as to how many games out there are what I would consider "well-run". IME, though (two countried, several American states), I would say that the above is true for the majority of games I have been involved in.

I don't think much of the games where it has not been true.

You're the only one trying to convince anyone that the other options do not exist.

Again, I guess you don't understand what I am saying.

In your game, I can go to a sage or two and discover specific spells in a wizard's spellbook? Really? Spend some gold and I get to read the table of contents on Mordenkainen's spellbook? I don't think so.

I suggest that you examine the 1e DMG section on hiring spies, as well as the 1e DMG section on hiring sages. What you are asking for is an "exacting" question in the sage material. It might take a long time to gain the information sought, and it might cost a lot of gold, but it is at least potentially do-able.

A mage who leads combat with finger of death will certainly be known to do so. Indeed, that mage probably wants that to be known, so as to convince others not to attack him. A mage who wants to avoid others knowing that he has a SoD spell is unlikely to use it in the first round of combat -- he will reserve it for when things get dire.

Certainly, powerful spellcasters will take pains to keep others from knowing what their exact abilities are. Other powerful spellcasters will take pains to know. When the PCs start asking around about Mordenkainen's spellbook, they are likely to attract the attention of both.

EDIT: Or you could just cast low-level divination spells over a few game-days time, going down the spell list, and ask if your target wizard has each one. It won't help you with newly-invented spells, but it will certainly allow you to check on any specific SoD spells you are concerned about.

I really don't believe any DM would actually allow this in a game.

Whyever not?

I understand what you're saying.

If you do, you are certainly not responding to it, and your statements of what I mean are malicious fabrications. Probabably better to assume that you do not, eh?



RC


EDIT:

Leave me out of it and stop complaining that I've somehow skewed people's views of your point. Just please, stop referring to me in this thread.

Nice try to tell me what I think, and have the last word about what I think, too! Brazen, sir, and I would XP you for the sheer brass if I could!

 

[MrMyth]

Now, if everything you were saying was about "the party" rather than "me" all the time then I could get behind it at least somewhat; because the party *is* the key ingredient. The party, as a whole.

I think you're still missing the point. The desire isn't for him to be the sole protagonist in the game. The goal is simply to be one. That doesn't mean he's the only figure in the story, it is that he wants to have personal investment in it. Ideally, all characters should.

Sure, you could make up a plot that was about the party as a whole, I suppose. But I've also seen others where most characters are drawn into the plot in different ways. You've got one guy who is there to avenge his father's death, another who is there to rescue his lost love, etc.

Is it really 'selfish' to want a plot that one has a personal connection to?

I mean, I don't expect it of all my DMs, but some of the most successful games I've seen have involved trying to create those connections and provide a level of personal investment in the plot. It's not the only style of gaming, certainly. But is it really wrong or selfish to prefer it?

 

[MrMyth]

I am looking forward to finding out how you drew that conclusion.

I am not aware of a single instance in any game I have ever played, as player or GM, even under the crappiest GMs I have ever known, where a player's decisions didn't have an impact on the game, nor any game where, at times, a single roll did not decide everything. This has been brought up in previous discussions, and in all cases it has been demonstrated that player choices led to the fateful die being cast.

But, again, if there is ever a single roll disconnected from everything else you've already got bigger problems than SoD. I've never seen it happen. I've never seen a "Bodak in the window" scenario play out where the only choices involved where whether or not to play a rogue, go on the adventure, or be the party scout.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. But, if it did happen to you, the GM involved was (IMHO) at fault. Sorry, but that is (again, IMHO) not good GMing!

What do you think makes a better game:

1. You encounter Some Awful Creature.

2. You hear about Some Awful Creature, come across a carcass of its kill (which demonstrates that it could take down a manticore in flight, and seems to have some sort of acid attack), then spy the creature on the wing, and only then have to deal with it to meet some goal.

I am firmly on the side of (2). You may call it "bubble wrapping every encounter"; I call it "creating anticipation, fear, and dread".

These quotes, and others like them, seemed very much to be saying that PCs were always given warning signs of encounters, or at the very least were always making informed decisions that lead to whatever their fate may be.

Again, my bad if that isn't what you intended, but these absolutely made it sound like having even the possibility of the PCs entering an encounter uninformed was "bad DMing".

Specific examples aside, because they could be argued back and forth until the InterWeb crashes down around us

Just as a note, this is part of my point. You can come up with scenarios in which a creature's footprint is obvious. I can come up with scenarios in which it isn't. But I'm not trying to prove that your examples aren't reasonable - I'm just trying to prove that both scenarios exist.

would you or would you not agree that, often some clue is available (even if not discovered, or not properly understood)? What I mean here is that, although some times, what is most reasonable is that the footprints will be impossible or nigh-impossible, that "impossible or nigh-impossible" itself is a corner-case?

Honestly, no, I don't agree. I think that in most situations, the signs of a creature's presence will exist but not be easy to find unless a party is really good at their job or is lucky enough to glance in the right place. Some of the time the signs will be quite obvious. Some of the times the signs will be almost impossible to find.

The possibility will often be there, but in most scenarios that I've seen in adventures, comes down more to chance than anything else - do the players happen to have the right skills? Do they look in the right place?

Now, you can tie those elements into player ability - a group should make sure it has someone knowledgeable in every field, and that goes out of its way to search everything foe clues (and going a step further, has all the right magic items and divination spells to learn even more.) And maybe that is part of the old school field that I'm not getting, that there is a level of player skill to making sure they aren't taken unaware by an encounter.

But I don't think that level of behavior is a reasonable expectation for a game. And more than that, the issue at hand remains Save or Die - if a group happens to miss a clue and run into a scary giant, they might take one or two bad hits and then make an informed decision to run. If they turn the corner and spot a Bodak, half the party could be dead before they've been given that option.

Again, it's all about being able to make informed decisions to determine your character's fate. Your argument has been that those decisions come up before combat ever starts, and sometimes that is true. But I think there are plenty of times when you aren't likely to know what you are fighting, and not simply as the result of a world lacking consistency or realism or a bad DM.

Both your and Hussar's examples seem to come from 3.x, and I am certainly willing to agree that many changes in 3.x were not for the better. Indeed, the more I examine WotC-D&D, the more I conclude that the designers don't really understand Gygaxian D&D.

I'll readily admit that my positions are largely informed on my own experiences, which have only been from 2nd Ed and 3rd Edition... but it was actually my impression that Gygaxian D&D was even more about surprise encounters and dungeons filled with random monsters whose presence wasn't particularly obvious from the local ecology.

In any case, I don't think the discussion at hand is particularly tied to edition. I'll maintain that regardless of edition, I don't think that the default level of knowledge for PCs is to typically know exactly what they are fighting and what it is capable of.

Also, I mean to apologize for muddying the waters with the issue being about "PCs being at fault", since that wasn't specifically your point in the past.

Accepted. That was another "interpretation of my point" that I am happy to put to rest.

Er, just to clarify - I hadn't meant to ever present it as an interpretation of your point at all. It was a point brought up by a number of other posters that seemed connected to this discussion (hence why I wanted to address it), but I realized was largely just drawing things off focus since it hadn't been part of your own argument at all.

Likewise, every SoD (unless the game begins with a bodak jumping out of the closet) has a number of "moves" or "rolls" prior to the final die-rolling moment. This is true whether or not "every monster has a distinct footprint which the PCs could respond to".

Entering Dungeon Level 7, where you know CR 7 creatures are likely to lurk, is something that the players can react to, whether or not they know specifically which creatures they will encounter.

My point is that, if one argues "All SoD is bad" then one must also agree (if one is to be consistent) that SSSoD is also bad, because it contains within it SoD. Otherwise, one is left with the argument "SoD can be bad", which is hardly contentious.

The argument was made that, unlike SSSoD, SoD came out of the blue. I made the counter-argument that this isn't necessarily so.....and is very, very often not so, if the GM is creating a game environment that is consistent.

There are basically two elements of your argument that I disagree with.

One, as we've been discussing, that a consistent game environment results in the majority of encounters being easily predictable by the PCs. I just don't agree that is the case. Some encounters being easily predictable, sure. Most... might have the potential, but usually only if the PCs happen to be lucky (either in having the right skill, looking in the right place) or have really exceptional knowledge-gathering capabilities (super divination spells or other info-gathering tricks).

Secondly... the reason SSSoD, to me, is acceptable is because that final save isn't isolated. It is the result of informed decisions that were made with full knowledge that death was approaching.

Again:

Scenario One. I begin fighting a Basilisk and start to turn to stone. I make decisions about whether to try and heal myself or win the fight. After several rounds, I end up petrified. I still feel like I was able to participate in the combat and help decide my own fate.

Scenario Two. I enter level 7 of a dungeon. I know that there could be Bodaks here, just like there could be any of a thousand other level 7 monsters. Our DM has carefully plotted out the dungeon - he knows in which rooms the Bodak leaves the corpses of its prey, he knows what hallways it prowls for more prey (and when), he knows which hobgoblins might offer rumors of a 'death watcher' in exchange for their lives. So we've got our consistent dungeon with various possible clues.

Our group enters the first intersection. We hear the sounds of rowdy hobgoblins to the left... we decide we don't want to dive into a fight until we learn more, so we go right. We find another intersection, and our rogue decides to spend some time searching for traps before we go further. While he does so, the DM notes we are in the patrol path of the Bodak - it turns a corner, we see it, combat starts, and I die before our Cleric can point out what it is.

I don't see this as particularly unlikely. Yes, there are dozens of branching points of decisions here. Maybe a third of them lead to use learning about the Bodak in advance, maybe a third of them result in us fighting it without any warning, maybe a third allow us to avoid it entirely.

But most of those decisions are uninformed. I know that I can go fight some hobgoblins or keep exploring on my own; I don't know that by fighting the hobgoblins I will learn the nature of a specific death gazing undead in the dungeon.

Whereas when I am being turned to stone by a Basilisk, I know, in general, what is happening and what the consequences of my actions might be. I get to participate in the fight before petrification overcomes me.

That's why the SSSoD is acceptable, to me, while the SoD is not.

And the problem with the SoD is not the DMing style, for not having warning signs of the Bodak in the very first room we enter. It isn't the fault of the party for going down the wrong path or missing the right clues. The problem is with having a mechanic that instantly kills a character before any action can be taken on behalf of that character.

I'm not saying this problem is for everyone. But I am saying that my personal issues with it are, yes, absolutely rooted in the mechanic itself!

 

[MrMyth]

Primarily, because stories around "the protagonist" typically are set where the character is at the near pinnacle of his power. The narrative has shifted from "growing into power" to "being the one to", "use power responsibly", "correct wrongs", or "avert the calamity".

I absolutely disagree with this. How many stories are there about characters that are still growing, developing, etc? The majority of them, I expect. Yet the character still remains the protagonist and is deeply tied to the story without having to be the most powerful figure in the world.

Campaign One: Four PCs gather in a tavern, hear about a lich's tower, and go to explore it. They might all have rich and detailed backstories, but none of them have any specific ties to the Lich. Or perhaps the mayor of the town comes to them, revealing the Lich's evil plan to conquer the region, and they are sent to stop him.

Campaign Two: Jack was a farmer, until his crops withered and died from the dark magic coming downstream from the Lich's tower. He picks up his father's sword and goes to do something about it, meeting up with Sally the Rogue (whose sister went to steal something from the Lich and never returned), Eric the Cleric (prophesied to defeat this evil since he was a child), and Sam the mysterious wizard (who hasn't revealed that the Lich was once his mentor, before turning to dark ways.)

Both of these campaigns can be perfectly fun, and are perfectly legitimate styles of play. But in the second, the story is more about the characters than the Lich. It isn't about them seeking him out and becoming heroes by proving themselves against the bad guys of the setting, it is about them exploring their own personal stories as they connect to the plot of the game.

 

[Nagol]

I absolutely disagree with this. How many stories are there about characters that are still growing, developing, etc? The majority of them, I expect. Yet the character still remains the protagonist and is deeply tied to the story without having to be the most powerful figure in the world.

Campaign One: Four PCs gather in a tavern, hear about a lich's tower, and go to explore it. They might all have rich and detailed backstories, but none of them have any specific ties to the Lich. Or perhaps the mayor of the town comes to them, revealing the Lich's evil plan to conquer the region, and they are sent to stop him.

Campaign Two: Jack was a farmer, until his crops withered and died from the dark magic coming downstream from the Lich's tower. He picks up his father's sword and goes to do something about it, meeting up with Sally the Rogue (whose sister went to steal something from the Lich and never returned), Eric the Cleric (prophesied to defeat this evil since he was a child), and Sam the mysterious wizard (who hasn't revealed that the Lich was once his mentor, before turning to dark ways.)

Both of these campaigns can be perfectly fun, and are perfectly legitimate styles of play. But in the second, the story is more about the characters than the Lich. It isn't about them seeking him out and becoming heroes by proving themselves against the bad guys of the setting, it is about them exploring their own personal stories as they connect to the plot of the game.

I didn’t say D&D couldn’t do it, merely that other systems do it better.
“The protagonist” usually isn’t the most powerful figure in the world. His power level is simply at a particular point and his place (social place, not necessarily geographic) in the world is defined. The narrative around "the protagonist" revolves around his place in the world.

The default conceit for D&D beginning adventurers is well, they're beginning. The (human) characters are 14-20 years old and are just coming into adulthood (Wizards are typically a few years older due to the ‘intense study’ required that others can pick up in the field in a matter of days, but that’s another story).

Joe the farmer hasn’t been one for more than a year (no Commoner levels, no age for it, and limited skill). Sally’s sister may have struck out to steal from the lich, but Sally hasn’t done anything herself. Eric may have a prophesy behind him, but hasn’t done anything. Sam wasn’t being mentored by someone who turned dark unless that turning happened since graduation last week (in which case Sally’s sister was trying to steal from a human Wizard, but whatever).

The characters are exploring to discover their place in the world. will Eric succeed or was it a false prophecy?

Other game systems offer a much wider default beginning character (Traveler, for instance ranges from 15 to about 50 years old with commensurate life experience). Other games systems have better mechanical representation of diverse backgrounds (owning land, having powerful family members, favours owed and owing, social standing, or belonging to a religious order that wants to support the success of your prophecy, etc.)

Can you do this in D&D? Sure. Do other games offer a better representation? Absolutely.

 

[Ariosto]

If we go back to 1e, then encounter range doesn't matter because over 30 feet, the party cannot tell that the creature is a medusa

Says what rule, where?

There are any number of ways you can hide the footprint of a creature.

It's trivial for you to set up even a "don't save, just die" certain death situation if that's what you want. So, go ahead and knock yourself out as long as you can find players to put up with that. That is no argument at all against the rest of us running what we consider fun games!

The only way your limitation of SoD works, is if the footprint is detectable EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Lets's be clear: You really mean IS DETECTED every single time. ( "Single time" here means what YOU choose for it to mean in YOUR game). It cannot be a game, but must instead be an entitlement.

Because if it's not, then it becomes a surprise encounter...

My ignorance of the Toledo address of a psychopathic hermit does not require me to have any encounter with him at all. First, I would need some reason to be in Toledo!

"An unexpected confrontation" is in fact the definition of "encounter" in the DMG glossary. Further, surprise -- in the technical sense, which allows the advantaged side free attacks -- is a standard part of the game.

...and SoD typically just means die for at least one character.

That's because YOU arbitrarily don't allow tactics that prevent it. That, again, is no argument against the rest of us enjoying the game of D&D as millions have known it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

First off, Neonchameleon, good post overall.

I think we broadly agree in understanding - we just want to play very different games

The wandering monster table does more than determine what monsters there are in a dungeon. It allows some of the monsters to move throughout the complex without the GM having to track all of them individually, and it is a prompt to (1) keep the noise down, and (2) keep moving.

I agree that wandering monsters should be tailored to the environment.

Hence the caveat I put in - no SoD monsters on the Wandering Monster Table. I believe Tiamat to have been on the 1e DMG tables. (Which is another reason I really don't want to return to Gygaxian approaches).

In 4e, you may want to consider wandering monsters which are almost all minions, but which can alert and bring out the bigger guns. That way, you can get the benefits of wandering monsters without facing the problem of extended combat times against secondary threats. One or two wandering monsters can be "real threats", though, just to keep the players on their toes.

Nice, thanks. If I ever have the desire to run a dungeon in 4e I'll use that. (4e sucks at classic dungeoncrawling IMO. On the other hand it does pretty well at dungeon exploration).

By the RAW, you couldn't have the scene in The Hobbit where Bilbo rescues the dwarves from the spiders -- they would have failed their saves and died, rather than being weakened and sickened. Likewise, Frodo's survival of Shelob's poisoning in LotR.

4e condition track for poisons all the way! If I say the final result of a poison is a coma rather than death then it damn well is a coma rather than death - even in the RAW.

I certainly believe that SoD is an appropriate mechanic for some types of monster abilities/game effects. That does not make it the best mechanic for all monster abilities/game effects (or even all for which it has, in the past, been used).

The thing is that these times are so rare that it should be the exception in exception based design. I have no objection to Orcus having the Wand of Orcus which reduces anyone to 0hp (which does weird things in a monster vs monster fight), a Catoblepas turning death saves from SSSoD to SoD, or even The Gorgon Medusa having a SoD stony glare. What I mind is a medusa having a SoD stony glare and almost all random wizards above a certain level packing any of a number of SoD choices.

SoD needs to be rare, powerful, and feared. As such it shouldn't be a core mechanic at all even if certain name-level characters do have SoD.

"SSSoD is broken because I can make an SSSoD monster that prevents you from doing anything between the saves" is a poor argument. "SoD is broken because this Medusa is badly designed" is an equally poor argument.

The issue is a matter of work. If the monster is spending all their time preventing the PC doing things then it's tying up the monster as well as the PC. If the monster is negligently anhilliating PCs that's bad.

If it hasn't been answered before, it is because a single example where X doesn't work is insufficient to demonstrate that X is a mechanic with value. Conversely, a single example of where X works well demonstrates that X is a mechanic with value.

Depends what you mean by "a mechanic with value" - any extra mechanic at any point bloats the system leading to negative value because it makes the whole thing larger, buliker, and harder to understand. (Again, this is the point of Exception Based Design - the negative value is massively reduced).

Likewise, while I might not need or want SoD for a giant spider, that doesn't mean that I want Medusa to take at least three rounds to petrify someone.

So Medusa should be the exception, not the spider

Killed? Absolutely not. Hostile to it? I beg to differ. There are many game changes in WotC-D&D that make a sandbox harder to run well than in previous editions. But that is another topic, which should be forked if you wish to discuss that further.

I just might

For a moment, I thought you were being serious when you wrote that!

The first time I re-read that I thought that although it was over the top by my standards, someone was going to take me seriously

 

[Ariosto]

He's a damn Wizard! He probably has 30 spells in his spell book at a minimum. That makes him too flexible to prepare against given that he can change his entire loadout on a day to day basis - unless he has a reputation for signature spells.

Next topic: Wizards, Yea or Nay?

In 1st ed. AD&D, prismatic spray is a 7th-level illusionist spell, castable (other than from a scroll, wand, etc.) only by a character of at least 14th level. To replace the full allotment of spells requires 10 hours of rest and 17 hours of memorization: a total of 27 hours. Depending on the world in question, a day might be but 24 hours and change.

(In 2e, the per-spell component is only 2/3, so it might take about 21 hours.)

In 3e, a wizard can learn the spell a level earlier. (The wizard gets automatic free picks from 3e's full corpus of former illusionist and magic-user spells.) A 13th-level 3e wizard can cast 26 spells, or 28 at 14th, versus only 22 for the AD&D illusionist.

(The assessment of power is complicated by the 3e caster having one less spell per low spell level and one more per high spell level. There are also the "0-level" spell slots in 3e, the options for which include both former 1st-level spells and cantrips.)

Also, the 3e wizard does indeed get to do that each and every day.

3e might have been clearer if fighters had been renamed "grogs".

 

[Raven Crowking]

These quotes, and others like them, seemed very much to be saying that PCs were always given warning signs of encounters, or at the very least were always making informed decisions that lead to whatever their fate may be.

Sorry, but you are adding significant material to what is presented in order to draw that conclusion.

I am not aware of a single instance in any game I have ever played, as player or GM, even under the crappiest GMs I have ever known, where a player's decisions didn't have an impact on the game, nor any game where, at times, a single roll did not decide everything. This has been brought up in previous discussions, and in all cases it has been demonstrated that player choices led to the fateful die being cast.​

How, exactly, does this mean that PCs were always given warning signs of encounters? It is a specific answer to the idea that “BAM! The PC is dead without having gotten to make any decisions!” That is clearly wrong. Unless the monster jumps out of the closet at the start of the game, the PC got to make decisions.

Looking for warning signs is a decision. Not looking for warning signs is, equally, a decision. You do not need to be given warning signs to make a decision. Heading out into the blue and hoping for the best may be a bad decision, but it is a decision.

But, again, if there is ever a single roll disconnected from everything else you've already got bigger problems than SoD. I've never seen it happen. I've never seen a "Bodak in the window" scenario play out where the only choices involved where whether or not to play a rogue, go on the adventure, or be the party scout.


I'm not saying it doesn't happen. But, if it did happen to you, the GM involved was (IMHO) at fault. Sorry, but that is (again, IMHO) not good GMing!​

Same response as above applies. The argument that SoD is bad because the players make no decisions is a poor argument, at best. As has been pointed out by others in this thread, the circumstances of the bodak in the window probably should not have resulted in the rogue’s death as described. IMHO, that was a case of classically bad GMing.

And it isn’t classically bad GMing because the “PCs entering an encounter uninformed” – it is classically bad GMing because the GM ignores the ameliorating efforts of the PCs in order to create a desired outcome.

The PC rogue sneaks up to the cabin and peers in the window. He does so successfully, which rather indicates that the inhabitant(s) are not looking at him. But, rather than treat the encounter as one in which the PC gains information (which he undertook, please note, significant risk to gain), the GM decides that the bodak’s gaze attack applies.

This is the same sort of bad GMing involved with efforts to frustrate player attempts to acquire knowledge because it will “spoil the surprise” or otherwise change how the GM expects things to work out. If the game includes low-level divination spells, and these spells can be used to learn what spells are in an enemy wizard’s spellbook, not letting the attempt work “just because” is bad GMing.

IMHO. YMMV.

I mean, look at all the background text in many modules. I have heard people – some of them in this thread – complain that there is “no way” the players could learn that background information. Then, in this thread, the same folks complain that they, effectively, shouldn’t be giving the players information.

Why not allow the PCs to try to find out what’s in Elmonster’s spellbook? Why is it trite to allow natural clues as to what lives around the Ruins of Ruinous Runes?

Is doing so going to ruin your narrative?

What do you think makes a better game:


1. You encounter Some Awful Creature.


2. You hear about Some Awful Creature, come across a carcass of its kill (which demonstrates that it could take down a manticore in flight, and seems to have some sort of acid attack), then spy the creature on the wing, and only then have to deal with it to meet some goal.


I am firmly on the side of (2). You may call it "bubble wrapping every encounter"; I call it "creating anticipation, fear, and dread".​

Again, how does “The opportunity to anticipate encounters is more effective than simply plopping a monster in front of the PCs” become “PCs were always given warning signs of encounters”?

As for “at the very least were always making informed decisions that lead to whatever their fate may be” you seem to miss the idea, no matter how often repeated, that it is the player’s responsibility to ensure their PCs are informed. The players, not the GM, determine when the PCs have enough information to act.

The GM’s obligation is to make sure that doing so is possible if pursued in a manner consistent with the campaign milieu. Generally speaking, it is better for the GM to allow the players to have more information rather than less, because context.

Specific examples aside, because they could be argued back and forth until the InterWeb crashes down around us

Just as a note, this is part of my point. You can come up with scenarios in which a creature's footprint is obvious. I can come up with scenarios in which it isn't. But I'm not trying to prove that your examples aren't reasonable - I'm just trying to prove that both scenarios exist.

No one is arguing that both scenarios do not, AFAICT.

I think that in most situations, the signs of a creature's presence will exist but not be easy to find unless a party is really good at their job or is lucky enough to glance in the right place. Some of the time the signs will be quite obvious. Some of the times the signs will be almost impossible to find.

Fair enough. But if you agree that “The possibility will often be there” that is close enough to my point that we can simply agree to disagree. Or maybe my players are just really good at their jobs, and have some idea where signs are likely to be found.

Can we use this as an example of how I use footprints? It is a pbp, appearing effectively in “real time”, and is old enough that I cannot be accused of rigging the results (unless you think I have super-genius intelligence and predicted the need to do so long ago, anyway! ): http://www.enworld.org/forum/playing-game/112911-lakelands-six-adventure.html

do the players happen to have the right skills? Do they look in the right place?

I was going to ask how these are a matter of luck, but you already answered my question:

Now, you can tie those elements into player ability

Again, if you are at all unclear on the concept, Gygax’s advice in the 1e PHB really cannot be beat.

if a group happens to miss a clue and run into a scary giant, they might take one or two bad hits and then make an informed decision to run. If they turn the corner and spot a Bodak, half the party could be dead before they've been given that option.

If they run into a giant, half the party could be dead before they’ve been given that option.

Again, it's all about being able to make informed decisions to determine your character's fate. Your argument has been that those decisions come up before combat ever starts, and sometimes that is true. But I think there are plenty of times when you aren't likely to know what you are fighting, and not simply as the result of a world lacking consistency or realism or a bad DM.

Agreed that it's all about being able to make informed decisions to determine your character's fate, and, yes, those decisions come up before combat ever starts. Disagree that this is only “sometimes true” – the only exception being the GM starting a game with “roll for initiative” or something like that. Agreed that there are plenty of times when you aren't likely to know what you are fighting, and that this is not necessarily simply the result of a world lacking consistency or a bad GM.

Sometimes it is because the players thought they had enough information to go on (and were wrong). Sometimes it is simply bad luck.

But, again, saying “that there are plenty of times when you aren't likely to know what you are fighting” again ignores an important concept – the larger the creature’s environmental impact, the larger its footprint. I may not be certain about the pine martin, but I would know a moose print, a deer print, or a bear’s track.

Likewise, Bilbo & Company certainly knew about the dragon and the goblins, but didn’t know about the spiders setting out (local impact), although within that location the footprint became obvious. The footprint of the deer was less obvious than the footprint of the black squirrels, because there were more black squirrels than deer.

Is this actually hard to grasp?

One, as we've been discussing, that a consistent game environment results in the majority of encounters being easily predictable by the PCs.

“Potentially predictable” =/= “easily predictable”.


If this is a primary objection to my argument, it is an (unintentional) strawman.


IME, with many, many players over many years and in many places, the vast majority of players do not need “really exceptional knowledge-gathering capabilities (super divination spells or other info-gathering tricks)” in order to perform necessary information gathering well.

Secondly... the reason SSSoD, to me, is acceptable is because that final save isn't isolated. It is the result of informed decisions that were made with full knowledge that death was approaching.

Cool. But, again, that isn’t an argument that SoD is bad; it is an argument that using SoD in certain ways is bad.


That said, though, I don’t find your Scenario Two as consistent as you do. Your bodak is way too close to the hobgoblins for my comfort. Nor are there any other indicators present apart from what the hobgoblins know. Also, if the bodak is that close to the level entrance, with nothing preventing it’s going to Level 6, why haven’t the PCs heard anything about it before now?


Nonetheless, if we accept it at face value, yes, you are dead.


There are dozens of branching points of decisions here. But if most of those decisions are uninformed, how much responsibility do you accept for that as a player? I mean, didn’t you make a decision to go down to Level Seven, informed by the knowledge that you still hadn’t learned anything about what’s down there?



RC