Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[Freakohollik]

Really?

A DM is bad because they use a monster explicitly as it is written in the system? Or because the party fights an evil wizard, and he happens to have a Save or Die spell on his list somewhere?

The problem there is solely that the DM is bad, and not, say, that there is a flaw in the system?

No, sorry, I don't buy that. Maybe a good DM could find ways around that situation. But the rules themselves put them in there, and a perfectly average DM - even an above average one - could easily use them without having done anything wrong.

This is really the heart of the matter. There is definitely not enough guidance in the DMG/MM to advise when it is okay to use a SoD. You say having a monster pop out of the ground with no warning fire off a save or die because the rules said so is not bad DMing? If I had to cite an example of bad DMing, that would probably be the first thing I'd say. There are plenty of bad adventure modules that do this with a group of inexplicable bodaks on a wandering encounter table or something similar.

I like SoDs, but they are often not used well and there are plenty of reasons they can get out of hand.

First, a bit of 1e history that led to an abundance of SoDs.
- Many 1e modules were tournament modules and were made intentionally very difficult. The authors would often put save or dies in there to punish mistakes. This is fine for a tournament module, but usually too harsh for standard play. But then it started showing up in adventures and modules written for standard play.

- In 1e, often the idea of "clearing" a dungeon would be foolish. The dungeon was too dangerous a place for that. You need to get in, get the big treasure in the last room, and get out. There would be save or dies, and that's why you needed to visit as few rooms as possible. The notion of visiting few rooms went away, but the SoDs did not.

- 1e saves were easy at high levels. As SoDs become more common, your saves get better. So they're less deadly. In contrast, 3e saves are built upon a 50% mechanic. That's deadly.

Those things set the table for SoD mistakes. Then 3e came along and made some mistakes too.
- First and foremost is CR. The idea that some number can tell you if it's okay to throw a monster at PCs is flawed. It is NOT okay to drop a surprise bodak on a party regardless of CR.

- Because of all abundance of SoD, preparation and protection became huge in 3e. They were there in 1e as well, but not to this extent. Someone upthread strongly disliked the idea of requiring so much magical protection. Well that's the nature of of high level 3e. With so much powerful magic around, you'd be ignoring the way the game world works if you didn't have such protections. I'm not saying it was right, I'm saying that's the way it was. But, this is never explained in any 3e book I've read. It's something you just have to figure out.


It really all comes down to this: SoDs exist to punish PCs for mistakes. If you're not willing to kill them for a given mistake, don't attach a SoD to it.

 

[Freakohollik]

Without that save, the GM wouldn't have thought it was acceptable to put a snake with a "just die" attack in the room.


The save ISN'T always a bonus tacked onto something that would be "just die", the save is often an excuse for including something which is, still, "just die", cleverly disguised by going "it's not my fault, it's the dice".

I enjoy games which give the players some element of control. Where the players actions (not the dice) are the main decider of whether they live or die.
If you're honestly saying "SoD" is a kindness; think, would you really include all the "SoD" critters you do, if they WERE "just die"?

You've missed his point. The point is that if you're putting in SoDs in situations where it wouldn't be a kindness, then you're using it wrong. If you put in the SoD critters with no way for the PCs to live except to make their save, you've made a DMing mistake.

 

[Abraxas]

Problem is, I don't think its fair to blame the DM for that, because that's how the rules say this thing works - he looks in the room. There is a Bodak within 30', and he obviously isn't trying to avert his gaze (as he doesn't know it has a gaze attack, and is trying to identify it). The rules don't provide any random chance that he doesn't meet its gaze - they say he makes a Fort Save, or dies.

Just wanted to make a comment on this - I do think it is fair to blame the DM in this situation, especially if the rogue manages to avoid detection by the Bodak.

Gaze attacks can be turned on and off at will by the creatures with them unless the description specifically says they can't. In most cases it really make no sense for the gaze attack to be turned on all the time, you could affect allies, flying insects would be falling out of the air around you all the time, small animals would be dropping dead everywhere the creature goes (these last two would probably give you a clue that something dangerous was about)

But you may think differently and that's fine and dandy.

 

[Abraxas]

A save or die is one of the few things these days that will make me just walk away from a game (and I'm typically the GM). The thing is, putting something in place where a single die roll determines the outcome of a character's story is, well, about 99% of the time it's a horrible way to do something.

I like to challenge my players, and I don't run a cake walk campaign by any measure, but save or die mechanics are such a blunt instrument to make something challenging or exciting. "Oh my, you've rolled a '1'... better luck next time." How exciting was that?

Just my opinion, but I'd say "good riddance!"

--Steve

I'm truly curious - how many die rolls are needed before it isn't a game breaker for you? Do you have a set number or is it a general feeling thing?

I ask because right now i have no problem with the single roll type event, but these 3 strikes your out type events just irritate the heck out of me and I know why. Each roll is a 55% chance to succeed and after failing all three it seems like a much bigger failure than missing a single roll. It doesn't provide tension to me, it just royally pisses me off - because once it happens I'm out of the fight for an hour or two or three.

 

[Lanefan]

Good grief Lanefan. You actually kept playing with that DM?

Yep. Still am, as a matter of fact; and this event was well over 20 years ago.

Forcing someone to not play for several hours to maintain a sense of verisimilitude is not the sense of priorities I want in a DM. Ever.

It's not like there was nothing to do. If a player didn't make a session their character was at my mercy; failing that, the party had an NPC or two I could roll for; and failing that I could always just sit back with a beer and let 'em entertain me.

As far as the multiple PC's idea being a solution, I'll admit I like the idea to some degree. It does have legs, although, IMO, it simply spackles over the problem, rather than solving it. It's great for some games - Paranoia springs to mind - but, I'm not sure if it would be something many gamers would like in long term campaigns.

Party-member NPCs are another solution.

The problem that is being spackled over, is frequent character removal from play. Whether that removal is from character death or role play, frequent character removal is the problem.

There's where we disagree, I think. To you, frequent character removal is a problem. To me, it's just part of the game.

So, while multiple PC's does speak to the symptoms of the problem, it doesn't actually solve them. After all, you need a method to restock your stable of characters or you wind up right back at the same problem - a player with no character to play.

That's what the roll-up dice are for. And if your party is high enough level to have raise-dead capability in the field it's possible you won't have time to even get the dice out.

The other direction to take is to simply mitigate (not remove) the number of characters removed from play. The example of a character being role played out of the group is solved by group templates, where a given character must have connections to existing characters before it is incorporated into the group. Instead of random stranger with a glowing "P" over his head in a tavern, the new PC must have at least one, and hopefully more, reasons for joining the group and staying with it.

Reasons for joining: "You look like adventurers. I'm an adventurer. I'm a greedy SOB. Adventurers working in larger numbers get richer than adventurers working in smaller numbers. Where's the adventure, and when do we leave?"

Instead of multiple creatures with SoD, reduce the total number, mitigate the effects of poison to make it debilitating rather than lethal, and possibly reduce the odds that a SoD will actually result in death (snakes that give +4 save bonuses, SSSoD, that sort of thing). Less characters die, and the problem is greatly reduced.

Oddly enough, though I kill lots of characters SoD isn't that much of a factor; at a rough guess I'd say failed SoD's have accounted for maybe 10-15% of the deaths in my game, and several of those were Medusa stonings.

It's usually straight-up damage that gets 'em.

Lanefan

 

[Kaiyanwang]

I have learned two things in this thread.

1) Some people like save-or-die at least in some circumstances.
2) Some people do not like save-or-die.

I guess it's a good thing people can play their games the way they prefer, otherwise arguments might break out or something.

As I stated before, I guess it's good haveing systems with SoD, so I can choose to use or not use them. If a designer decides that SoD is badwrongfun and removes them from the system, I have to homebrew them from the ground.

A thing that has a chence to raise issues, and lowers the chance to buy the system in the first place. Why buy a book if I have to homebrew everything?

 

[Kingreaper]

I'm truly curious - how many die rolls are needed before it isn't a game breaker for you? Do you have a set number or is it a general feeling thing?

I ask because right now i have no problem with the single roll type event, but these 3 strikes your out type events just irritate the heck out of me and I know why. Each roll is a 55% chance to succeed and after failing all three it seems like a much bigger failure than missing a single roll. It doesn't provide tension to me, it just royally pisses me off - because once it happens I'm out of the fight for an hour or two or three.

It isn't the number of die rolls, it's the ability of the party to make a difference, that matters to me.

In 4e, those three saves? Your allies can rush up and give you extra chances to succeed, they can pull you out of danger, they can do all sorts of things to make you not die.

With just one save you either die, or you don't.

 

[Hussar]

Dude, just don't play in games with save-or-dies.

If it is truly a gamebreaker, ask the GM before getting invested in the campaign SoDs. He might even be willing to compromise, or drop them entirely to keep on a player.

And seriously: have the courtesy to ask... because as a DM I would be royally pissed if a player stormed off in a huff because I ran a with a rule I had no idea he didn't like.

As is consistently ignored in these kinds of threads, every single last one of these kinds of "problems" are non-issues when the people at the table communicate about their expectations, preferences, and the like.

Oh, 100% agree with this. This is most certainly something that should get hashed out at the table and if it's not, then at least it should get hashed out after the first time it happens. Communications is most definitely the key.

Couple more points back to RavenCrowking before he gets back.

1. RC, you've said that you like SoD because it leads to a logical outcome of the player's choices. The PC's annoy the Mob, the Mob sets a hit team after them. But, that's where I disagree. How is the hit team having SoD abilities a logical outcome? It could easily be that the hit team is just really nasty bastards who are going to beat you like a pinata. Why does a demon lord have to specifically send bodaks? After all, he could easily send something like Vrocks. Which, in my mind, would be a much, much more fun encounter. The only reason that a SoD creature is a "logical" outcome is because that particular creature was written with a SoD ability. There's no mechanical reason that an assassin MUST have a SoD attack. A rogue's backstab ability serves much the same purpose, without it having to be mostly arbitrary as to whether you die or not.

2. RC again. I believe you're claiming that there is no difference between SoD and SSSSSSoD. But, the second option is precisely how combat works. HitHHHHHH and die. Combat doesn't work with Hit and Die, to the point where a monster whose attack does Current HP+11 is actually considered bad design. With a multi-hit encounter, the player can react to each attack, choose tactics, get help from his friends, whatever. With the one hit death monster, he can't do anything. Isn't this precisely the difference between SoD and SSSSoD?

Now, Lanefan:

There's where we disagree, I think. To you, frequent character removal is a problem. To me, it's just part of the game.

But, if it wasn't a problem, then why have multiple PC's? The game isn't set up for you to have multiple PC's, nor is that an assumption within the rules. That's something you've added to address a particular outcome of the game. If that outcome wasn't problematic, why would you address it at all?

Reasons for joining: "You look like adventurers. I'm an adventurer. I'm a greedy SOB. Adventurers working in larger numbers get richer than adventurers working in smaller numbers. Where's the adventure, and when do we leave?"

Yeah, I've kinda stopped playing like that in anything other than beer and pretzels games. Granted I LIKE beer and pretzels games, I'm in the middle of a really fun one right now. But, I find that sort of thing gets REALLY stale after the fifteenth greedy adventurer that we've met.

YMMV as someone in this thread would likely say.

 

[BryonD]

It isn't the number of die rolls, it's the ability of the party to make a difference, that matters to me.

The idea that party's chance to make a difference doesn't kick in until after the save die is rolled is a huge point of disconnect in the perpectives.

 

[BryonD]

I have always felt that the 10 seconds of fear you might gain from a SoD situation isn't worth it.

And the idea that the 10 seconds of fear is the potential "gain" is another point of huge disconnect.

I will certainly agree that there is a sudden buzz of exceitment/tension/whatever at the moment of that die roll. So it does exist. But, that is just a trivial side bonus. It isn't even in my mind when I think about the merits of save or die. For my position, you can freely presume that it doesn't exist at all and have no change in the point. Then if you get that buzz, consider it a tiny bonus dividend.

And yet you specifically identify it as the value for judging the costs against.

Thus, it seems clear that the actual benefits I gain are an unknown mystery to you. Which is fine, it just means, as we have concluded before, that you are playing a radically different game than I am.

I can assume that you are playing soccer all I want, there is no way I am going to show you the merits of a corner kick to your game of baseball.