Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[Fifth Element]

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.

Hussar's comment about the findability of the gorgons notwithstanding, you're once again conflating a single, unique mythical creature with an entire class of creatures in D&D.

Let's say your claim is true, that Medusa's location was well-known. Perhaps she would be, since she was a powerful, unique creature. But that does not translate to D&D, where medusas are a race of creatures, and moreover there are many species that have SoD abilities, which is the topic under discussion.

The point is that many players would find their versimilitude broken if every intelligent SoD creature they encountered happens to leave clues about its location. They're smart enough to cover up the evidence, but they don't. Doing this some of the time would be fine for them, but every single one?

And while you might not have made the claim yourself (I don't recall), the claim has certainly been made by some DMs who like SoD monsters that players will always have clues to their whereabouts, and so should never be taken by surprise if they're paying attention. Not just in this thread, but in threads past as well.

 

[Mallus]

Skip to the OT: if you're interested in the strictly on-topic comments...

If it works for you to go to the FLGS, advertise a "D&D" game on the bulletin board, and then surprise prospective players with a concoction hitherto not known by that name then shine on you crazy diamond.

Let my try to explain where I'm coming from, if you're interesting in hearing... the first long-running game I played in, circa 1984, was an AD&D campaign which used the critical hit tables from Arms Law and ditched Vancian casting in favor of a spell point system (from an issue of the Dragon? White Dwarf?). My impression was everyone was doing that sort of thing back then; customizing the D&D experience to their tastes, stealing from whatever piqued your interest (both mechanics and fluff). My experiences with other campaign bore this out. This *was* old-school gaming.

Wherever you get the notion that there is some privileged merit in such behavior...

You are misreading me.

(B) You actually don't like rebuilding so much as you like having a game that you enjoy playing. In that case, you can stop already complaining about what nobody put a gun to your head and made you play in the first place, and move along to something more aligned with your tastes.

Or C) you customize the game to your taste. Which is what everyone I knew did back in my day. There was no grail quest for the "ideal game", and no call from doctrinally pure D&D; we took the system we were most familiar with and modified it to our febrile mind's content.

In either case, your not liking the game is a matter of personal preference, not some universal standard by which liking it is wrong. This is the point some people have a problem sorting out.

But I'm not one of those people. You're arguing with someone who isn't here.

*[In case the picture link gets broken, it's Ed "Big Daddy" Roth's Rat Fink.]

It's a cool picture. It reminds me of both SpongeBob and Gamma World. Which reminds me, which edition of D&D had the rules for mixing in Gamma World? I distinctly recall the D&D AC for powered armor -- was that 1e or 2e?

(this is why the idea of doctrinally pure D&D seems ill-supported by the actual text of the game)

OT: I'm warming to the idea of SoD... or a the 4e version of it SSSoD. I realize my biggest issue w/old-school save mechanics is, mechanically-speaking, they're reactions on the part of the character, not the player. Once a save was called for, no action can be taken. There's no room for player input, and therefore, clever play. Clever play is all the avoidance of the save in the first place, and, as several people have admitted, there's a tradition of 'gotcha' play in traditional D&D.

I much prefer the idea a PC has 3 rounds before they're fatally converted to statuary, because it gives the player (and group) a chance to do something about it --without requires the group have any foreknowledge of the situation. This suits my "kick-in-the-doors/driving-by-the-seat-of-your-iron-pants" style of play to a tee.

 

[Sadrik]

I think that Save or Die and other effects are important. However I think that they can not be implimented as they were in 3e. You need to have that 2e/1e save chart where you get better as you level up at saving. In 3e, the math can be wrung where you can force failed saves on too high of a percentage chance (even a "good" +2 to +12 save). In 2e/1e your saves actually get better as you level up and they are not modified by the level of the caster. So, yeah save or die, but add in a better save system.

 

[Hussar]

I think that Save or Die and other effects are important. However I think that they can not be implimented as they were in 3e. You need to have that 2e/1e save chart where you get better as you level up at saving. In 3e, the math can be wrung where you can force failed saves on too high of a percentage chance (even a "good" +2 to +12 save). In 2e/1e your saves actually get better as you level up and they are not modified by the level of the caster. So, yeah save or die, but add in a better save system.

Y'know, that's a very good point. Because the saves were based solely on level, you could change play based on that - lower levels and the SoD baddy get's signposted, higher levels and the lethality goes down and you can bomb away.

I know that because the saves were based on ability scores to some degree, you could get some extremely wonky save DC's if you started altering or advancing a SoD creature. Bumping hit dice can change stats pretty dramatically, which can easily outstrip a more balanced saving throw number. I know in the World's Largest Dungeon, for example, there was an advanced Cockatrice with a Fort save DC in the early 20's. This was meant for a 5th or 6th level party. Even those with good saves weren't saving all that often and everyone else was boned.

To be fair though, the encounter was THOROUGHLY signposted.

 

[billd91]

The point is that many players would find their versimilitude broken if every intelligent SoD creature they encountered happens to leave clues about its location. They're smart enough to cover up the evidence, but they don't. Doing this some of the time would be fine for them, but every single one?

I don't know about that. Verisimilitude can be broken by monsters just popping up with no warning or anything (barring summoned monsters). Evidence may be hard to find, sure, but evidence is almost always there unless the creature is absolutely perfect at covering its tracks.

 

[GregChristopher]

I guess my answer is contextual. If the characters are just walking along and BAM SoD!, that seems to be very arbitrary to me.

But if you know that there is a really murderous monster or whatever in some particular area, and you go unprepared, then I see no problem with a SoD roll.

 

[The Shaman]

I guess my answer is contextual. If the characters are just walking along and BAM SoD!, that seems to be very arbitrary to me.

But if you know that there is a really murderous monster or whatever in some particular area, and you go unprepared, then I see no problem with a SoD roll.

I think if the adventurers are wandering around in a trackless waste beyond the edges of civilization, or mucking about in a vast dungeon far beneath the ground, that's all the context needed.

 

[GregChristopher]

I think if the adventurers are wandering around in a trackless waste beyond the edges of civilization, or mucking about in a vast dungeon far beneath the ground, that's all the context needed.

I disagree. It isnt an issue of realism (yes, these areas are dangerous) but an issue of game-fairness. People are investing a lot in these characters, they need some social contract that they wont be killed arbitrarily. If that is not present, they are either so cautious that the game is boring or they don't invest any emotion in their characters anymore; two outcomes I think are very bad.

 

[radmod]

I don't think, deep inside, I want to agree with Greg here, but I do, with exceptions.
If the players are going after BBEG, then they should probably be expecting an SoD. Likewise, if they are in someplace that is totally, hugely dangerous you should encounter a SoD.
However, if you're headed back to town, or just wandering around, I don't think an SoD random is totally appropriate.
That said, I probably do it anyway and don't realize it.

 

[Ariosto]

I think it is reasonable to ask that the GM of such a campaign be explicit with his players. "SoD monsters do exists in this world, and you may well encounter them in adventures or even on a wandering monster chart." If the players agree to play that game, then they agree to deal with SoDs and being ""prepared" for them is a foregone conclusion.

In a WW2 game, most people with an interest in WW2 games assume the existence, for instance, or high explosives.

In a D&D game, most people with an interest are already D&Ders and know very well indeed about "SoD monsters". They usually are "SoD monsters" with sleep spells!

Neither have new players, in my experience, generally been trained elsewhere to expect any of the stuff that "new school" D&D assumes. They get the same kind of lowdown on basics as when we play any other game. They don't, as a rule, consider it a big deal to try a game and find it not one's cup of tea.

The "problem" is overwhelmingly with people who make rather a point of how much they are not interested in playing the game in the first place, which really makes it a non-issue. The guys I play with who also play 4e join in because they happen to enjoy a variety of games.

Anyhow, apart from disintegration, magic tends not to kill things any more dead than getting surprised and hit hard by a pack of kobolds (or whatever). Taking steps to shift the odds is what the game is. This is not radically different in principle from the play of most games involving both dice and strategy.