SoD, how can we accommodate everyone?

[scadgrad]

The main problem with save or die is that if the PC is not brought back from the dead, it takes an hour or more anymore to create a new PC... but I think that having your PC die and you sit there on the laptop making a new one...

This idea goes beyond save or die really, and is a fundamental difference in play styles from the first 25 years of the game and the Post 2E model.

Save or die and level drain creates fear, dread and yes, excitement. There's no reason it couldn't be replaced with less harsh module for other styles of play.

 

[Dannager]

Save or die and level drain creates fear, dread and yes, excitement.

It also creates games where players are not invested in their characters because they could lose them in a single roll.

I think what we're looking for is a way to keep the ability to inject fear and dread into the game when appropriate (and excitement everywhere) without the downsides that come with the save-or-die mechanic. It's just sort of a sucky mechanic.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

It also creates games where players are not invested in their characters because they could lose them in a single roll.

I'd argue that it makes them MORE invested in their characters because they could lose them in a single roll.

 

[Guest 85555]

I'd argue that it makes them MORE invested in their characters because they could lose them in a single roll.

Me too. But I still think having options to accomodate multiple playstyles is the way to go. The goal of the edition is to unite the fanbase, that includes old school people, 3e and 4e. A lot of us who mastered the game on editions prior to 3E really like classic level drain and SoD (but this is far from universal even among 1e and 2e fans). Give people the tools to play the game the way they want to play.

 

[Mercule]

This idea goes beyond save or die really, and is a fundamental difference in play styles from the first 25 years of the game and the Post 2E model.

Agreed. In 1e/2e, I regularly created characters in under 10 minutes. As DM, I usually ran campaigns where most of the encounters were with other PC races, and created encounters on the fly, because it was so dead simple.

I thought 3e would be awesome because I was always bothered by NPCs with "magic" powers the PCs could never possess. I ended up hating it because it screwed up my game style. My players, understandable, liked having options and didn't want to go back to pre-3e. So, we ended up not gaming -- until I decided to do Rappan Athuk by RAW, recently.

Save or die and level drain creates fear, dread and yes, excitement. There's no reason it couldn't be replaced with less harsh module for other styles of play.

Agreed, in general. I don't mind SoD. I always hated level drain, though. Seems backward, intellectually, I know.

 

[Consonant Dude]

Man, I'm reading arguments from both sides of the fence and I'm torn. I have played in old school lethal games and more "merciful" games and I can't really decide.

I don't think one way or the other sucks and I think how "engaging" it will be totally depends on preferences but here's the fundamental idea as I see it: It's about your ability react to what's happening. It's about decisions.


Lethality in regards to HP loss, a typical scenario

DM: There's an evil-lookin' dude, he looks badass and he's got two ogre bodyguards.
Bob: I charge!
A few rounds later, Bob's HPs are going down the drain and none of the three opponents seem particularly hurt. Now, Bob may ask for help, start asking questions about the environment to retreat, parley, run, jump on a passing boat, whatever. These decisions will lead to more rolls but depending on how bad was the original decision, he may still die. In fact, statistically he might be just as likely to die as if he had to make a save VS poison.

Lethality in regards to save-or-die, a typical scenario

DM: Lecter the creepy gnome brings you a stew.
Bob: Yummy! I eat it!
DM: Roll a die. If you miss, you die.


In both cases, the player's decision (in red) may have been a mistake. The resolution mechanic determines how you can recover from one critical decision. In HP loss situations, you can probably still make other decisions after your initial choice. In save or die, there is no more decisions past the initial choice. Just a die roll.

What's better? What sucks? Depends on your preferences.

 

[avin]

It also creates games where players are not invested in their characters because they could lose them in a single roll.

I'd argue that it makes them MORE invested in their characters because they could lose them in a single roll.

In my experience with somewhat more lethal systems, GURPS in special, players invest far more on characters who can die. They don't do stupid things. They value their lives...

Death, I think, is more a GM concern (story stops or pauses when a PC die) than player's.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'd argue that it makes them MORE invested in their characters because they could lose them in a single roll.

This is what we call an argument which on the surface, sounds plausible, but when the idea is drilled down into deeper, doesn't make as much sense as it did on the surface.

A better way to phrase this might be:

"I'd argue that the threat of death makes players MORE invested in their characters because they could lose them."

It's the perceived threat that makes players cautious (be it undead that can level drain as per 3E, or eating a soup that could be poisonous, or just being low level and seeing a Giant and wondering if your PC will survive).

Save or die has nothing to do with this particular set of player behavior.

Save or die just happens to be one type of death in an RPG and typically one that is not perceived until it happens. Hence, save or does seems to make sense in the sentence you quoted, but really doesn't.


Perceived threat is what can make players more invested in their PCs.

Save or Die just happens to be one possible threat, hence, keeping it in the game system to keep players invested in their PCs is not necessary. The DM merely has to threaten the PCs with stronger threats to accomplish that goal.


I do want WotC to bring back threats that are so nasty that the players are cautious around them, but save or die isn't one of them. It's a poor excuse for a threatening game mechanic when the game designers and/or DMs cannot come up with something better.

 

[KarinsDad]

In my experience with somewhat more lethal systems, GURPS in special, players invest far more on characters who can die. They don't do stupid things. They value their lives...

I think the concept of players "doing stupid things" is irrelevant to playing an RPG. The very fact that PCs go out into dungeons and fight monsters is stupid. It's interesting how willing some DMs are to punish players for doing something stupid when the entire game by definition is going out and doing stupid stuff.

As an example, the PCs come to a ravine. Lowering down into it in hindsight might be stupid (splits the party, some are above, some are below). Crossing it in hindsight might be stupid (the PCs are trapped and cannot come back quickly, or they might get attacked when only some are across). Going another way might be stupid (they now have 5 encounters to get to the treasure instead of 0).

If players never had their PCs ever do anything stupid, they would never leave the safety of the town.

Interestingly enough, save or die is often agnostic to stupidity. It doesn't matter which PC gets hit with a Finger of Death and what that PC was doing. It's just suddenly, save or die.

 

[Kynn]

Me too. But I still think having options to accomodate multiple playstyles is the way to go. The goal of the edition is to unite the fanbase, that includes old school people, 3e and 4e. A lot of us who mastered the game on editions prior to 3E really like classic level drain and SoD (but this is far from universal even among 1e and 2e fans). Give people the tools to play the game the way they want to play.

As someone who started with AD&D, I really wish you wouldn't simplify this to say that players from earlier editions want save-or-die and players from newer editions do not.

It's just not that simple. You admit it's "far from universal" so what's your point with these kinds of statements in the first place?