Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[BryonD]

...it's all D&D to me...

Is GURPS fantasy "D&D" to you? Is HERO? Is Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay?

It is all "fantasy roleplay" to me. But there are a lot of "but"s to keep in mind.

If WHFRP is "D&D" to you, then, imo, you are not using the label "D&D" correctly. Not that there is a big problem here, Xerox doesn't mean "photocopy" but people still get the point. But it is better to speak clearly, and in the case I do think the distinctions impact the conversation.

"D&D" is nothing but a brand name. Every version of D&D, so far, has also been "fantasy roleplay". But the games are decidedly different from one to another, within the brand.

If you see Moldvay and 3E as under the same "all D&D" umbrella, but HERO and WHFRP are not just because they lack the
D&D brand label, then I'm forced to conclude this is not a very thoughtful or useful assessment.

Whereas if you see all "fantasy roleplay" as "all D&D", I'm still stuck not finding that useful. You can't talk to a wine collector and tell them that "wine is wine" and expect them to go on to look to your opinions as meaningful with regard to the merits of their collection.

Different versions of fantasy roleplay bearing the name "D&D" are hugely different in the details. Having a preference for one over another is all simple taste, and it is all good. But calling them all the same is odd.

 

[BryonD]

Actually, that's not true. The larger the party is the more deadly a SoD creature becomes. If you have 1 PC with a 50/50 save, there's a 50/50 chance of death. If you have 4 PC's with a 50/50 save, odds say two should die in the first round.

It is certainly very possible for a party of four characters to bumble into a SoD encounter. But the number of characters in my parties has varied between four and six (briefly and rarely eight). In the regular course of events I would expect the avg number of people initially exposed to the effect is slightly over one.

You have gone from taking issue with expectations of mitigating factors to now requiring as a unavoidable truth that all party members will be caught flat footed (not the mechanical term here) by a SoD threat in the first round.

As someone who is all about the story, I'm again struck by just how wildly different the game you play is to mine. The narrative driven events are all controlling in my games. The mechanics are absolute slaves to the narrative. The idea that a basilisk encounter is required because it is on a random encounter table is just plain wrong to me. I certainly might use a random table to determine a piece of the narrative in an organic manner, if you will. But the results of that table work for me, not the other way around.

And, in the same manner, the characters rolling their saves in the first round is not some predetermined mechanical known. It is the result of the narrative of events leading up to the encounter. There have probably been more events in which the party actually got the drop on a SoD threat than there have been three pr more saves in round one. Not that it can't happen. It certainly CAN. But the presumption is way out of line. It completely removes the "game" from the roleplay".

To me, it just plays silly buggers with the math of the game.

The math should be invisible as possible. When you start messing with the story over "the math" you defeat the purpose. (Obviously, imo)

 

[BryonD]

OTOH, I do completely recognize the fact that for some people, the devil is in the details. Taking out the Dwarf and adding in a Dragonborn fighter results in a completely different game for some people. It doesn't for me.

Just to throw in on this line:

Swapping a Dragonborn in for a Dwarf would have a huge impact on the narrative to me. But neither narrative is better than the other.

And it has zero impact on the merits of the game side.

I personally don't like dragonborn as much as dwarves. But it is pure taste and if I was a fan of 4E mechanically I'd just not use the dragonborn in my games and keep moving.

 

[Hussar]

Different versions of fantasy roleplay bearing the name "D&D" are hugely different in the details. Having a preference for one over another is all simple taste, and it is all good. But calling them all the same is odd.

So, what do you call what you play? I say that I'm playing in a D&D campaign on Tuesday mornings. I've been playing in various campaigns on Tuesday (and Thursday morning before that) for the past 10 years. While the rules have changed three times in that time, I still think that I'm playing D&D. Actually, the rules have changed more than 3 times considering the number of books and whatnot that has crossed the table - Unearthed Arcana, Scarred Lands with its own rules, Tome of Magic, Bo9S, now 4e. Meh, to me, it's always been D&D.

Does it play differently mechanically? Sure, not going to disagree there. But, there are far more, for me, similarities than differences. In every game, I've generated a six stat character based on 3-18 for base stats, given him a class, given him feats, given him skills and a race and equipment. That character has then gone on a series of adventures based around heroic fantasy tropes.

To me, that's good enough to call it D&D. Heck, back in 2e, I invaded my campaign with War of the World style tripods and the characters had lazer blasters. And I'd STILL call that D&D.

As someone who is all about the story, I'm again struck by just how wildly different the game you play is to mine. The narrative driven events are all controlling in my games. The mechanics are absolute slaves to the narrative. The idea that a basilisk encounter is required because it is on a random encounter table is just plain wrong to me. I certainly might use a random table to determine a piece of the narrative in an organic manner, if you will. But the results of that table work for me, not the other way around

Why are you taking issue with me here then? It's old school gaming that you're really arguing against. The idea that events occur in the game world that are not pre-determined by the DM.

I've played this way, I've played the other way too. Both have their advantages.

From what you're saying, for any encounter to occur, there must be a logical narrative leading to that encounter. Yet, ambushing the party with a medusa most certainly can flow logically. The basilisk encounter in A1 is not terribly out of line. Nor is the banshee in the attick in Beyond the Magic Mirror. Heck, honestly, the bodak assassins sent after the party in Savage Tide is perfectly reasonable.

The problem is, if I do this, it's a pretty much guaranteed death sentence on one character. That's why I don't like it. The DM is forced by the mechanics to ensure that the party is ready for the encounter. If he doesn't, then the encounter is too lethal.

The one thing pretty much everyone has agreed on in this thread is ambushing PC's with SoD creatures is a bad idea. But, ambushing with SSSoD is mostly fine. In 4e, you've only got a 1 in 8 chance of actually failing completely and it's quite possible to improve those odds. That's much better, IMO, than a 100% death rate.

 

[Lanefan]

The problem is, if I do this, it's a pretty much guaranteed death sentence on one character. That's why I don't like it. The DM is forced by the mechanics to ensure that the party is ready for the encounter. If he doesn't, then the encounter is too lethal.

The one thing pretty much everyone has agreed on in this thread is ambushing PC's with SoD creatures is a bad idea. But, ambushing with SSSoD is mostly fine. In 4e, you've only got a 1 in 8 chance of actually failing completely and it's quite possible to improve those odds. That's much better, IMO, than a 100% death rate.

In the SoD equation, aren't you forgetting the S part?

Even at very low levels, you're going to save some of the time - though maybe not very often. As levels improve, so do relative odds of making a save (usually) to the point where at high levels you're going to make that save unless you're unlucky. And you often still have ways of improving the odds further.

As long as there's a save involved, there is no 100% death rate.

Lan-"my sword, on the other hand, always generates a 100% death rate - eventually"-efan

 

[Dausuul]

Actually, that's not true. The larger the party is the more deadly a SoD creature becomes. If you have 1 PC with a 50/50 save, there's a 50/50 chance of death. If you have 4 PC's with a 50/50 save, odds say two should die in the first round.

That's one of my big beefs with these abilities. They actually become MORE deadly the larger the party is. My current group has 6 PC's, soon to be 7. A SoD creature with a gaze attack is pretty much an instant death sentence for one PC in the first round.

To me, it just plays silly buggers with the math of the game.

Whoa, hold on there. That's got nothing to do with save-or-die; it's a result of the gaze attack mechanic, which is essentially an AoE attack with an area encompassing the battlefield. The same mathematical oddity would happen if the gaze attack dealt damage instead. Contrariwise, with other types of save-or-die (death touch, lethal poison, et cetera), it doesn't happen.

 

[DMJay]

I've been a PC for about 1.5 years. I am not against the DM using spells and such with save or die features. In fact I love it! When used in the right situations it gave the group a sense of danger.

 

[Ariosto]

"Hussar's Ever Failing Saves"?

No, I think the fellow just confuses himself as to what he's writing about -- before he writes something even more confusing.

"A 100% death rate" normally means that everyone dies. If 1 in 4 (or 25 in 100) die, that's what we call a 25% death rate.

Even the chance of at least one death is not 100%. If the individual probability is 1 in 4, and there are 4 candidates, then there is about a 96% chance of at least 1 death.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hussar's game appears to be considerably more lethal than old D&D. He can insist that it's "the same game", even though he has changed the fundamental structure.

That makes communication pretty difficult, though, with his insistence that the rest of us "must" be playing a game with which we in fact are not acquainted -- because it exists only between his ears!

The weight of evidence from his posts in various threads strongly suggests that
(A) The old game itself would actually be "too lethal" for his taste. When we get down to it,
(B) He is not interested in playing the old game with or without "SoD". The whole undertaking is tiresome to him, a means to ends that are not his.

 

[Ariosto]

In every game, I've generated a six stat character based on 3-18 for base stats, given him a class, given him feats, given him skills and a race and equipment. That character has then gone on a series of adventures based around heroic fantasy tropes.

To me, that's good enough to call it D&D.

To me, that's good enough to call it T&T -- to just the same degree. So, you can have fun with your T&T, and I'll have fun with my D&D! /joking

We can take those elements -- as we can take a gridded board and some markers -- and make very different games. The game is in the process.

Draw a card. There's a picture of a monster on it, right? Now, you have to roll to see whether you die.

No, you don't have any opportunity to use strategy. No, you can't take precautions, or scout, or evade, or spread out your forces, or concentrate them. No, the way the monster behaves does not depend on circumstances. No, you can't talk with it.

All you can do is roll the dice.

Sorry, pal, but that is not D&D to me. A good tournament scenario for actual D&D goes beyond that, and we're talking then about a limited variant of the game for special circumstances -- not the standard.

Neither is D&D a game in which losing pieces is some incredibly rare event. Losing pieces is part of the dynamics, as in Chess or Diplomacy or Squad Leader. What "the monster squad" can do, players can do as well.

 

[Mallus]

To me, that's good enough to call it T&T...

By George, I think he's got got it!

Sorry, pal, but that is not D&D to me.

Remember not everyone is as interested in doctrinal purity as you are. In fact, some people, like me, think D&D is all but defined by a DIY spirit, large-scale tinkering, and kitbashing, even with cherished systems like Vancian casting and saving throws.