Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[Reynard]

This is true, which is why BryonD's comparison to myths is not a good one, since those are stories that have already happened.

However, that being said, many people like to play D&D in order to do heroic things. Not to do things and hope that one of their characters kills enough rats to be able to do something heroic later on. If that's what they enjoy doing, then obviously save-or-die is going to suck. And no amount of "but what about the dramatic tension?" is going to change how they like to play.

True enough, but I think that in the end it is better to include the option and trust individual groups to un-include it. The same goes for the "fragile" early levels (where an orc with a 2 handed sword's every swing is a "save or die" moment). If groups want to start out as heroes and ensure bad luck will never undo their heroism, that group can start at 5th level, remove save or die effects and include Action points. The game doesn't need to be changed or restricted to accomodate that group.

 

[pawsplay]

I am a GM and player. I like the idea of save or die, but some effects are implemented that way that would work better otherwise. For example, Basic D&D had poison as save or die by default in most cases, and many death spells would make a lot more sense if they inflicted massive damage.

 

[Reynard]

I am a GM and player. I like the idea of save or die, but some effects are implemented that way that would work better otherwise. For example, Basic D&D had poison as save or die by default in most cases, and many death spells would make a lot more sense if they inflicted massive damage.

I only think that's true if damage was more granular. If, for example, one used Wound and Vitality points in D&D, I'd agree. "Finger of Death" could do 4d6 Wound Damage (no save) and work fine: it would outright kill your average milieu citizen and a good portion of your typical "hero" characters to boot, on an average roll.

 

[El Mahdi]

...Again, stories are not games.

Wrong...mine are both. YMMV though.

 

[Reynard]

Wrong...mine are both. YMMV though.

"Stories are not games" =/= "games are not stories."

 

[pawsplay]

I only think that's true if damage was more granular. If, for example, one used Wound and Vitality points in D&D, I'd agree. "Finger of Death" could do 4d6 Wound Damage (no save) and work fine: it would outright kill your average milieu citizen and a good portion of your typical "hero" characters to boot, on an average roll.

I can see a powerful creature/demon/Gandalf shrugging off Finger of Death. It's not something a "normal" person could do. To me, that sounds like a very large damage effect.

 

[El Mahdi]

Please, help me understand your point of view on this, because here's something that I don't understand...

I'll do my best.

Why is it assumed that heroes are successful most of the time? Or that bad things never happen to heroes?

I don't assume that Heroes are successful all the time. I'll use Star Wars as an example again. They go from defeat to defeat until finally, through perseverence, they defeat the Evil Empire. They fail far more than they succeed. But, if those points of failure had been Save-or-Die moments, they're never going to last long enough to persevere and finally win.

So, in the context of Save-or-Dies and those saying their exclusion is wrong, my question would be: Why does Death seem to be the only form of failure that matters?

I see many other possible results besides death...and most of them not independantly considered a "success". There are tons of bad things that can happen to Heroes besides simple death. To me, death is boring. Death is common and mundane...and too much like the real world. In my games, my players know there are many, many fates worse than death. Sometimes, I think they might actually appreciate a simple death rather than some of the tribulations I put them through. But I also know that's just momentary...in the end they enjoy what they endured and survived in order to get to the prize. (Or at least that's what they tell me.) But you can be sure, they do not feel that I coddled them by not using Save-or-Die effects. Removing them does not mean one has turned their Dungeon into a padded romper room! (As some in this thread have portrayed it.)

I am not trying to say that Save-or-Dies are wrong. If that's the trigger that delivers a thrill for other DM's, player's, and games, then by all means it's the absolutely right thing to be using. I and my group however, do not get a thrill from Save-or-Dies. And my posts explain why.

I've always felt that heroes are people who are outmatched by their circumstances that display courage and self-sacrifice. The classical or narrative definitions may or may not apply in gaming... But to me, heroism is more about attitude than accomplishment.

I agree! My question is: How does a meaningless, random death highlight a heroic attitude or a sense of self-sacrifice? Self-sacrifice is throwing yourself in front of the Medusa's gaze in order to save your friend...not walking around a corner and coming face to face with a Medusa, and simply dying... (No drama, no tension, no chance...for me, no fun.)

A courageous farmboy with a pitchfork defending his barn from a handful of orc raiders is a hero to me--he has drawn a line in the sand and is willing to pay in blood (whether his or the attackers) to hold that line. Sure, those orcs are probably going to tear him limb from limb, but not without a fight.

Yup. Agreed 100% again. I wonder though, do you see Heroism in dying from the Orc's first swing, simply due to the randomness of the dice? Where's the fight? Where's the "holding the line"? For me "You Shall Not Pass!", and the fight that follows, I find Heroic. "You Shall Not...(ahhh...gurgle...gurgle...thump)" - not so much.

On the other hand, a traveling knight on patrol that happens upon the scene is probably less heroic in my eyes--as the knight is heavily armed and trained for battle, his decision to engage the orc raiders is really more of a non-decision. They don't present as much of a challenge to him (unless they get really lucky), and he knows that he can cut them to ribbons before he even draws his sword. He engages the orc raiders because he's expected to and well-prepared for it, not because he's a hero.

I don't agree. He may have more resources and better odds, but the threat of death is still there. He doesn't know if they have friends, or an entire army, waiting in the woods. He doesn't know that they don't have some magic capable of defeating him. Success is not guaranteed. And, just because his decision is more automatic, doesn't make it any less significant. How is someone who does the right thing...the Heroic thing...as a matter of course, considered less Heroic than the one that considers whether or not to do the right thing before doing it?

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Poll needs to be multiple choice: I am a Player and DM.

I loath save-or-die with a passion that I cannot describe. I can only suppose two reasons:

I hate death being easy: If easy things are not accomplishments than death should not be easy because DEATH should be an accomplishment. It should be EARNED.

I also hate the excitement of surviving them: For the above reason I feel horrible for surviving death if it's easy, and nothing is easier than doing something random and waiting for an outcome.

 

[S'mon]

A courageous farmboy with a pitchfork defending his barn from a handful of orc raiders is a hero to me--he has drawn a line in the sand and is willing to pay in blood (whether his or the attackers) to hold that line. Sure, those orcs are probably going to tear him limb from limb, but not without a fight.

If he's going to die pointlessly, he's a brave fool, not a hero. If he's sacrificing himself to give his family time to flee, then he's a hero - in the Christian sense rather than the classic Hellenic sense, of course. The Hellenic hero, like the Hollywood action hero or the D&D 4th level Fighter, is a Hero because he can kick the orcs' butt.

 

[Storminator]

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.

Our 4e encounter with a medusa was absolutely fantastic. We didn't realize the hooded archer was a medusa until she whipped off the hood and gazed us. Then we had a stack of PCs that needed to make saves REAL BAD. Which was cool and scaring and dramatic. And we were still getting shot at.

PS