SoD, how can we accommodate everyone?

[jodyjohnson]

If every character or creature in the game was closer to being a minion and were played that way, most of my personal issues with Save or Die would go away.

In a narrative the effects are useful for plot. In a game they are usual just a means to bypass hit points and the end result is a kill.

 

[avin]

I think the concept of players "doing stupid things" is irrelevant to playing an RPG.

I disagree. Stupid means dead, at least in my games.

The very fact that PCs go out into dungeons and fight monsters is stupid.

I've been DMing for what, 15 years? 3.0, 3.5, 4E, GURPS, Storyteller, Deadlands and some more...

Dungeons were used only twice in all these years... and with a decent reason, both, so, no comment if it's smart or stupid...

As a player I went only to Undermountain and my Dwarf Sorcerer wasn't comfortable with that... but he desperately needed the money.

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.

I try to run worlds as plausible as I can. NPCs tend to react properly.

I wasn't "punishing" a human fighter character when he impaled an elf's head in his spike armor and just entered Baldur's Gate. Guards arrested him and put him in jail.

NPCs just reacted properly.

I'm not a fan of "Deus Ex Machina" saving players from bad decisions like that.

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).

Stupid is engage Tarrasque at level 1.
Stupid is charge a Medusa, knowing that she's there, with no proper protection and be petrified.

Chosing a path into a ravine is not, IMO. They even may take a path that's not so good... but, in my book, not stupid.

 

[KarinsDad]

Chosing a path into a ravine is not, IMO. They even may take a path that's not so good... but, in my book, not stupid.

Agreed. But, my point about stupid is that no matter what PCs do, it's quite frequently not a good idea. The reason is because players are often in the dark about what the future holds. They often don't know what is behind the door, or if the chest is trapped, or that an area on the map is controlled by a gang of monsters. The only thing that makes all of these things even feasibly non-stupid is that there is a DM balancing out encounters.

The only real definition of stupid in the game is when the player knows the consequences of his or her actions ahead of time, but goes ahead and does it anyway. And even this definition has exceptions. A PC trying to jump over a pit knows that if he rolls low, his PC will fall. But in the spirit of the moment and because the bad guy is on the other side shooting arrows at his teammates, the player tries it. This could be considered heroic instead of stupid, even if it fails.

Anytime that the players do not know the potential consequences, then it's not stupid. It's adventuring.

And I agree, I don't like "Deus Ex Machina" saving PCs, regardless of whether their actions are stupid or smart.

 

[Guest 85555]

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?

My "it was far from universal" was an attempt to not simplify. But speaking as someone who started on Ad&D, i've found people my own age who grew up playing 1e and 2e tend to be more okay with save or die than people i know who started on 3e. But ultimately the point of the statement was more about making room for different tastes and experiences in the hobby.

 

[Oni]

Hey guys, the original post was very clear, this thread is not for discussing whether you like SoD or not, nor whether it should be included in the game or not. It's for discussing how you could accommodate both preferences. I kindly ask you to respect my request in the original post, if you want to continue your debate please take it to another thread, rather than taking over this one. Thank you.

 

[Rune]

Hey guys, the original post was very clear, this thread is not for discussing whether you like SoD or not, nor whether it should be included in the game or not. It's for discussing how you could accommodate both preferences. I kindly ask you to respect my request in the original post, if you want to continue your debate please take it to another thread, rather than taking over this one. Thank you.

Because it got lost in the noise, I'll repost my answer to your question:

Personally, I'd prefer to see a "Save or Die in One Turn" system. You fail your save, you have one round for you or your party to do something to save you. Failing that, you're done.

This keeps the sense of unpredictability and danger that Save or Die mechanics give the game, while also injecting a sense of urgency--and a forced change of tactics.

At the same time, it improves the chance of survival of the party and adds a measure of fairness to the Save or Die mechanics (all without destroying the unpredictability or sense of danger).

 

[the Jester]

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, especially at higher levels.

This need not, and indeed, in my opinion SHOULD not, be true.

 

[Essenti]

Save or Die used arbitrarily is just as much a Deus Ex Machina as having Gandalf rise out of the floor to save the day. It doesn't add anything of value to the game if there are no points of contention to build up to it or lead away from it. It just seems gamist and mechanical at that point.

However, if a PC wants to wade through lava without protection magical or otherwise, I will let them know BEFORE they try it that they will surely die, and there will be no save. Some things need to be stated matter-of-fact to the players.

In a situation where a PC is on the edge of a lava filled ravine or a pit trap or some such, I actually like to use "Indiana Jones" models for this, and allow for a chance for rescue, because THAT can actually add a lot of new excitement and tension for the whole group of PCs to deal with:

<Ralgar failed his whatever check> Ralgar is scrabbling desperately for a solid hand hold at the edge of the lava-filled ravine as rocks fall away below him, he won't be able to hold on much longer.

I make it clear that Ralgar won't be able to get back on the ledge on his own. At that point other characters can attempt to assist him and the Ralgar character still has a fighting chance to survive or not. Those moments are the best times for a DM to get creative and build the excitement even higher. Ralgar may still fall over the ledge and perish in the lava below. Maybe none of his companions can reach him in time or they simply write him off, but at least as a DM I tried to build more excitement around the event instead of instant death for failing a single die roll.

As for monsters with Save or Die abilities... I often give clear warning signs of such a deadly adversary if they haven't encountered one before or they are taken by surprise.

Ralgar, the creature before you casts off its cloak, and you see a mass of writhing snakes atop its vaguely feminine head. <Ralgar fails his save versus whatever> Ralgar, the sword in your hand begins to turn to stone, and by mere luck you manage to drop it before the foul magic affected you as well. Your +2 Sword of Swording shatters in a rocky mess on the cavern floor.

Instead of instantly ending a PC for being in the wrong place and failing a saving through I wasted his favorite magic sword instead. Ralgar loses out, but at least the story can keep going. If the party chooses to stick around and try to fight this now obviously dangerous creature, so be it. And I warn them there is a real chance this creature will turn the PC's to stone. There are some uses of Deus Ex Machina like I have described above which can serve to build excitement and push the story to higher levels. Using Save or Die arbitrarily is on the opposite spectrum, but I would use it for the remainder of the battle if they decided to stick around. Some creatures are terrifyingly dangerous and should be. It's the players who should make the decision to embark down extremely dangerous paths, I shouldn't be doing it for them.

As for players having Save or Die abilities, maybe it should only affect creatures lower level than the spell or something. One shotting the BBEG doesn't add excitement or tension.

Save or Die can add to the intensity of the game, but I don't feel that it works "as is" for me as a DM. If 5e has SoD effects, I will simply continue to use them as I always have, but I would be really excited and happy if they can create some new interesting mechanic that works well with my own tastes so that you can have palpable lethality in a game without boring and cheap death.

 

[GM Dave]

Someone mentioned something like this earlier in the thread and I was at the moment thinking of something along the same lines.

The Problem

People don't like the separate system of one good or bad die roll determining the fate of their character. People would like to keep the feeling of lethality of Save-or-Die but have it reduce in effect; especially at higher levels when the effects and types becomes more common.

One Solution

Drop the whole Saving Throw mechanic. Toss it in the trash.

Unify Things

People like hit points as a system. It provides a level of absorption of events and allows for healing to be used to prevent problems from 'killing' the character.

How to unify SoD with HP?

Give all SoD attack an amount of non-lethal damage that they do. Allow the non-lethal damage to stack with lethal damage for comparison to hit points.

If the total of lethal and non-lethal damage is less than the target's hit points then a lesser penalty from the SoD attack applies. Disintegrate would apply some lethal damage while blindness would apply a negative to hit.

If the total of lethal and non-lethal damage equals or exceeds the target's hit points then the 'die' mechanic is applied. Objects are disintegrated, targets fall over dead, targets are turned into wraiths, and other nasty things.

Value of Unification

The first benefit is to have a player 'healed' from a blindness or petrification attack as cure spells will work to remove the non-lethal damage.

The second benefit is that healthier characters survive better being petrified then weaker characters (helps fighters and tanks who charge the Medusa).

The third benefit is players have a gauge of how close they are getting to the 'die' effect. The 'die' effect remains a concern until the non-lethal damage is cured from the character. This builds drama in an encounter and between encounters if healing is not common. Players won't wait to go to zero hit points before asking to be healed as they will fear the bigger 'die' penalty that will be applied.

The fourth benefit is the amount of non-lethal damage applied and whether it is randomly rolled can embrace a range of play styles. People wanting more lethal encounters will increase the amount of non-lethal damage applied per attack compared to the player's normal hit points and people wanting less lethal can reduce the amount of damage.

The fifth benefit is the effects of non-lethal damage can stack. This makes a Beholder a fearsome creature because he can apply several non-lethal damage attacks (disintegrate and turn to stone) on the same target to build their total to a bad end. You can also have regular damage attacks work with the non-lethal making a single vampire amongst a group of humans a very fearsome person but the humans can not be ignored either.

I think this idea could do much to improve the whole way SoD are used in game play.

 

[keterys]

Fair, another compromise... again, trying to keep the spirit of save or die, but make it actually make sense within the hit point system that exists in the game.

Finger of Death
VERY high necrotic damage only if it's enough to kill the target. If insufficient, minimal damage (as if target had saved).
Save: Minimal damage.

Similar to how staking a vampire works in Buffy*, let's say FoD dealt 20d6 damage (or whatever). If that's enough to kill the target, then it's dead. If it isn't, it deals 20 damage. Done.

* something like triple damage - if that's enough to kill the vamp, it's staked - if not, it just does normal damage not triple, cause you clearly didn't stake it