Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5277294" data-attributes="member: 61155">By your logic, every death in the game is a "Save or Die" since at some point, the enemy rolls a final attack, and you die. Or you fail a last check to stabilize, and die.  Except that you can't genuinely compare those. Save or Die effects are, intrinsically, a single roll. That is the complaint people have with them. The fact that they do occur independant of other elements of combat.  Even if someone finishes turning to stone after 4 rounds, or dies from bleeding out after ten, or gets dropped by a monsters 3rd attack on the fifth round of combat, you can't just declare those comparable situations because "one roll occured, at the end of that sequence". If you aren't try to claim those situations are comparable, then I'm not sure what your point is.   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.  I... I honestly don't think you are trying to be offensive, here. But do you not see how, every time someone gives an example of times Save or Die effects caused problems in their game, responding with, "You and your friends are bad DMs" is not a reasonable thing to say.   Yes. When you try to portray several of my actual experiences and opinions as 'a flawed argument built on shaky ground'... yeah, I'm going to tell you that this isn't something you can claim, and I'm going to be confused why you are dead set, not on giving your own opinions on the virtues of Save or Die effects, but on trying to convince the other side that they hold invalid opinions.   My point was that it is a completely hollow statement. "Limiting the acceptable narratives" is just a fancy way of saying "prefers playing in a way they enjoy". And that is already understood, it is the core of the discussion, and pretty much of playing the game in the first place.  It isn't a question of acceptable narratives, it is a question of why people have these preferences.  I just don't know why you would feel the need to say that an opinion "is only true" in the context of people having likes and dislikes. Of course it is - that's why it is an opinion! Sharing opinions on this topic is what the thread is all about.    "It should be noted that your objects (2) and (3) have little to do with SoD, and are objections to the death itself. " That was not a general statement. I said, "Here are reasons Save or Death can be a problem", and you responded that, "No, your objections there aren't objections to the Save or Die part, but just to the death." That is you, attempting to tell me what I am saying. Not as a general statement, but specifically saying that my opinion meant something other than what I was saying with it.  Again, I don't think you are trying to do this maliciously, but do you really not see how that might not be a reasonable way to engage in discussion?  Heh, except that you did try to say that the opinion was wrong.  Let's assume, though, that wasn't the case. That you are instead just trying to explain to me why my reasons for arriving at that opinion aren't valid ones. Do you really believe that to be better?  However you cut it, telling me that my reasons for disliking Save or Die aren't valid ones, or that they are a result of being a bad DM, isn't something I'm a fan of.   Actually, I think you might be missing some of the point. The character does have some ability to determine their own fate. If Joe the Fighter gets badly wounded, and steps back and drinks a healing potion, and this means he survives, the character has influenced his own fate. Yes, the player made the decision for the character to take that action, but it felt like the character helped determine the result of battle and their own success or failure.  If Lyle the Rogue starts a fight, sees a bodak, and dies, he feels like he had much less control over his fate. Yes, decisions he made led to his death, but not ones that were particularly informed. The only decision he really made was being an adventure, and this resulted in his death, without anything he could do about it.  That's what bugs him.  Yes, you can step this all back and describe it as a matter of the character's control over the narrative, but it is relatively meaningless to do so. Yes, he wishes the narrative was that he didn't die a stupid death. That's exactly what we knew to begin with.   I think we're running the risk of the term 'narrative' ending up bankrupt of meaning, here.  It's meaningless to say that the reason is that "The resulting narrative is less satisfying." That's not the reason - that's an effect, and one that has a virtually identical meaning to "they didn't enjoy the game."  And saying that they didn't enjoy the game because they didn't enjoy the game doesn't particularly tell us anything at all.   Well... right and wrong. I'm referring to my own opinions, as well as those of the other people in the thread who have said virtually identical things. You know, the ones I provided a specific list of several posts back? I'm not saying these are true for everyone, sure. But they seem to be true for most of those offering opinions, in this thread, on this side of the discussion.  I think that is quite a bit different than offering up opinions that you admit are not your own, but are instead hypothetical viewpoints and feelings on behalf of the opposite side of the argument. You've said that general statements aren't meant to refer to individuals. But thus far you've both:  1) Made a general statement about why "most" people dislike Save or Die, one that is contradicted by everyone in this thread who has actually spoken out against SoD effects; and2) Referred to the specific opinions I've given by explaining that my issue isn't about Save or Die at all, but just about death alone. (Even though I've outright said that isn't the case.) If you really want me to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't trying to explain my own opinions for me... then I recommend not making claims like the above.</blockquote>

Verification