The ethics of ... death

[Tuft]

My own experience here fits with what Umbran says. A system that makes information, and similar strategic considerations, the key to success in action resolution, can very easily lead to a playstyle in which play bogs down into divination, and then using the right suite of buffs to make the actual encounter a cakewalk. I have encountered this particularly in high level (ie level 10+) Rolemaster.

I'd say that in my experience, information gathering the mundane way , through interactions or scouting, usually is more fun and more responsive than divinations. It has the advantage that it can either be a full-blown scene, or just a roll followed by some brief exposition from the DM.

In the brief exposition case, I'd say that much more time usually is "lost" by people dithering over the best movement path to minimize attacks of opportunity, or being in the bathroom when it is their turn...

The presence of SoD monsters are just *one* part of the exposition that information gathering opens up; the backstory that ties the adventure to the greater history of the world, what parties and forces are involved, the layout of the land, the presence of possible allies and safe spots, any clues and hints the DM wants the players to have, etc, are all possible parts of the information gathering.

A feature of 4e that I very much enjoy is that it shifts much of the locus of choice out of the "exploration" phase of play and into the "action resolution" phase of play. Toning down SoD is part of that, I think.

As one who loves the exploration and interaction phases, and who is pretty much burned-out on the combat phase, I'd like to ascribe that shift as one of the reason people voted with their dollars, and note that WoTC *do* want to strengthen those parts in the fifth. But this may be edging a little too close to edition warring...

 

[Balesir]

As one who loves the exploration and interaction phases, and who is pretty much burned-out on the combat phase, I'd like to ascribe that shift as one of the reason people voted with their dollars, and note that WoTC *do* want to strengthen those parts in the fifth. But this may be edging a little too close to edition warring...

For me the solution there is simple: make exploration and interaction a matter of action resolution rather than an opportunity to (try to) persuade the DM to give you as much as you can get. 4E tried to do this, but it was pretty lacklustre about it in the end; on the upside it at least made a start, on the downside it really didn't expand on that start anywhere near enough.

 

[pemerton]

As one who loves the exploration and interaction phases, and who is pretty much burned-out on the combat phase, I'd like to ascribe that shift as one of the reason people voted with their dollars

I don't understand why you equate "action resolution" (my phrase) with "combat" (your word) - especially given that, in my post, I talked expressly about non-combat dimensions of action resolution.

EDIT: Ninja-ed (somewhat, at least) by [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION].


I have played Rolemaster sessions where the bulk of the session consisted in planning the spell load-out (including placing spells on one-use items, imbuing non-casters with spell ablity etc, within a context in which stored/imbued spells could be "nested" so that they could only come out in the order they went in unless further "bypass" abilities were used). Once this was done, actual action resolution consisted in declaring the casting of the spells in the specified (nested) order for the win.

This is not entirely without interest, but can become closer to the solving of a crossword puzzle than to an action fantasy adventure in its tone.

 

[Doug McCrae]

One difficulty with information gathering as an element of gamist play is it encourages the use of out-of-character knowledge. This is fine for some playstyles, such as Gygaxian D&D, but if players are expected to act in character then it leads to a conflict of interest, with the use of OOC knowledge often regarded as preferable to PC death.

Also, in a world as strange as the typical D&D world, it can be hard to distinguish between monsters of widely varying power. Is a walking corpse a zombie, a wight, or a revenant?

 

[Guest 85555]

BRG - take the following example.

AD&D PC with 10 HP is successfully hit by a snake which has a SOD poison attack (pretty standard in AD&D) three times. The PC has a 50/50 chance of making his save. This character now dies 7/8 times or 87.5% of the time. And the chances actually don't significantly change even if you double his chance of saving. If he saves 75% of the time, he still dies 60% of the time in this scenario.

."

Getting hit three times succesfully is not a forgone concusion, particularly with a low hp creature like a snake. And even though 1E and 3E do let you go down to -10 for death (for 2E death is at 0 HP), you do start to die at -1 hp (so that probability also needs to be factored in). A 10 hp character has a pretty good chance of being knocked down to -1 hp after three succesful hits. Against a snake, a full party will most likely take it out before it has a chance for even a second attack (assumingit wins initiative).

Also, i am not disputing that SoD significantly raises the chance of death. That is what it is supposed to do. That is why I like it. I am just questioning the claim you made that it means one character dies nearly 100% of the time it is introduced (this will vary considerably dopending on party level, the characters and the encounter itself----in 2E, a 1st level priest has a death save of 10, but at 20th he has a 2). Also, as the party increases in level, their number of resources to del with such threats (particularly poison and petrification) go up considerably.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Before 3.x this simply amounts to choosing a class.

I suspect this is largely true, though IIRC there were magic items (including some that specifically enhanced saves against death); magic item acquisition is certainly a part of character building in D&D. There may also have been NWPs but I don't know that one way or the other. But yes, limited options before 3e.

However, in 3e, there are plenty of options. Every level you take affects saves. Ability scores and anything that changes them. Feats. Resistance bonuses. Maximizing your saves is a significant part of building a 3e character.

Again, prior to 3.x the rule for surprise was "the party is surprised on a 1 or 2". How do you avoid that?

They had divinations before 3e, didn't they? They had talking to people and finding out what the threats are in the area in advance?

But again, limitations of pre-3e rules are significant, but 3e gives us the important perception and stealth skills and a number of spells and special abilities that help you see what's coming.

Yep, good old "old school" play - "memorise the MM or you're toast".

Again, 3e has knowledge skills to explicitly deal with this, while 2e had some NWPs that were more limited, as I recall.

How do you avoid surprise, anticipate encounters or counter dangerous/SoD abilities when no edition has had actual explicit rules for doing any of this?

Well, I've covered surprise and anticipation enough, so there's rules for that, but yes there are also explicit rules for countering. What do you think Death Ward is? That predates 3e. There's also other spells and items that give you save bonuses or more qualified immunities. If it's a gaze attack (Medusa) there's also the whole averting your eyes business. With an enemy spellcaster, there's counterspelling and disruption. If we're including "save or suck" abilities, many of those are subject to dispel and break enchantment.

There's also broader tactics. If it's a death effect with limited range, you can just stay out of range. Many SoD monsters are not particularly mobile and don't have other combat options, so sniping is quite viable against, say, a bodak. In other cases, the death effect may be targeted, in which case, sending in your backstab-y rogue or pulling out invisibility spells may be quite effective.

Easy - you play "blag the DM". More formally, you invite the DM to use their power to improvise additional rules on the spot to allow the regular rule (if any) to be bypassed or to allow priviledges of information or exemption from power effects that are not a part of the normal rules.

I see nothing inherently wrong with improvisational play, but that's completely irrelevant to the situation at hand, as there are ample explicit rules that deal with the subject.

If you have few hit points you need to be extremely careful, if you have lots you can be a bit more adventurous; there's the most basic application of skill right there.

Perhaps you missed the whole debate in some other thread recently (blanking on which one) about whether characters know how many hp they have and whether that counts as metagaming. But yes, that is a (very basic) application of skill.

The point is that there are things that are written into the game that you can do to mitigate the risk. Absent significant DM license, with SoD there seldom is.

Except, you know, all that stuff about specific spells, averting one's eyes, and so on.

Another comment was made about "starting out of range of the SoD effect"; with line of sight effects or in a "dungeon" that's usually not a real option.

Don't be silly. There's a cantrip specifically for opening and closing doors at a distance. There's summoning garbage monsters to go ahead for you. There's perception skills and clairvoyance and other such divinations to help you see what's waiting for you. Dungeons do present an unusual set of circumstances, but you still shouldn't be just barging into a room with no idea what's going on, and people who play in dungeons ought to know how to deal with threats in confined spaces. And if, for any reason, a powerful opponent gets within 30 ft. of you without you knowing anything about it, you're in deep trouble whether it has an SoD or not.

 

[Ahnehnois]

One difficulty with information gathering as an element of gamist play is it encourages the use of out-of-character knowledge. This is fine for some playstyles, such as Gygaxian D&D, but if players are expected to act in character then it leads to a conflict of interest, with the use of OOC knowledge often regarded as preferable to PC death.

Also, in a world as strange as the typical D&D world, it can be hard to distinguish between monsters of widely varying power. Is a walking corpse a zombie, a wight, or a revenant?

Out-of-character knowledge can be problematic, but I find it interesting to play with people's expectations as a DM. One's word choice in describing that walking corpse makes quite a difference in what they think of it!

 

[N'raac]

Again, 3e has knowledge skills to explicitly deal with this, while 2e had some NWPs that were more limited, as I recall.

Well, yes and no.

In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.

For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.

So, 7 CR and 6 HD. Assuming our L7 character has maxed out his Knowledge - Nature, that's 10 ranks. Knowledge-Nature isn't likely being taken by a high INT character (more likely a Druid or Ranger, so say +11. A 5 gets one useful piece of info, a 10 gets 2. Not too many special abilities, the poisonous snake hair and a gaze that petrifies. Maybe skilled with bows, if we stretch. So, if we roll a 9 an the GM says "The medusa has poisonous snakes for hair", do we proceed on the basis we know nothing about its petrifying gaze?

Now, Banshees are Kn religion, so +1 INT, and our party was 17th level, so say 20 ranks +1 INT = +21. The Banshee has 19 HD, so DC 29 (pulled from Pathfinder). A 13 gets two bits of knowledge, and an 18 gets three. Special powers for a Banshee? Its incorporeal; can sense the beating of living hearts; its touch causes terror; its wail causes death; tack on all the Undead abilities and weaknesses or assume anyone with Kn Religion knows these (but then, do we assume all with Kn Planes know standards for evils, demons, archons, etc)? So, if we roll a 15, and know the Banshee is incorporeal and can sense the beating of living hearts, do we ignore its Wail? Are we using PC knowledge from the skill, player knowledge from memorizing monster stats, or a combination?

There's also broader tactics. If it's a death effect with limited range, you can just stay out of range. Many SoD monsters are not particularly mobile and don't have other combat options, so sniping is quite viable against, say, a bodak. In other cases, the death effect may be targeted, in which case, sending in your backstab-y rogue or pulling out invisibility spells may be quite effective.

The Banshee flies at 60' with perfect maneuverability (probably another special ability that should be up there). and moves through walls. And, again, how much does my KS need to succeed by to add details of the creature's mobility?

Plus, if I wanted to play a game where having a slim hope of character survival is dependent on thorough research through every possible source, followed by exploratory tactics ruled by OCD and paranoia (for every single character - no variation in personality; no human flaws or foibles causing any choice less than fully optimal for every circumstance), then I'd play a lot less D&D and a lot more Call of Cthulhu. Reasonable precautions? Sure. Two game sessions of research and tactical planning for each encounter we have? Not so much.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So, 7 CR and 6 HD. Assuming our L7 character has maxed out his Knowledge - Nature, that's 10 ranks. Knowledge-Nature isn't likely being taken by a high INT character (more likely a Druid or Ranger, so say +11. A 5 gets one useful piece of info, a 10 gets 2.

I would think that a death ability that is pretty much the creature's definitional attack would be the first thing revealed under most circumstances. And there are DCs on the book, but a lot of wiggle room for DMs in how to interpret these things.

Are we using PC knowledge from the skill, player knowledge from memorizing monster stats, or a combination?

I'm not really seeing how (in-game or out), you could tell a player the monster was a banshee (or Medusa, or whatever) without making them aware of its main ability. I think that falls under common sense for both parties. That's like knowing that if you see a dragon, you should watch out for a breath weapon, or knowing that vampires suck your blood. Once you know the enemy is a Medusa, you pretty much know not to look at it. And, many of these precautions/tactics are things that make sense even if you are not 100% sure what the enemy's abilities are. If it's a scary looking undead that doesn't move that fast, you don't need to know that it's a bodak to know that ranged combat might be a good idea.

The Banshee flies at 60' with perfect maneuverability (probably another special ability that should be up there). and moves through walls. And, again, how much does my KS need to succeed by to add details of the creature's mobility?

That I don't know, but by banshee levels, you should be able to teleport away or move faster than that. You should also have death ward or the equivalent in items, as it is now five levels lower than your max level spells. And possibly Foresight. Banshees have some impressive abilities, but they are hardly the greatest threat a 17th level party should be worried about.

Conversely, a bodak has 20' land speed. A Medusa has 30. A gorgon is 30. A cockatrice has fly 60', but poor maneuverability and it has to actually touch you. Most of these creatures are not going to be near you unless they sneak up on you (not real stealthy, most of them) or you approach them willingly.

Plus, if I wanted to play a game where having a slim hope of character survival is dependent on thorough research through every possible source, followed by exploratory tactics ruled by OCD and paranoia (for every single character - no variation in personality; no human flaws or foibles causing any choice less than fully optimal for every circumstance), then I'd play a lot less D&D and a lot more Call of Cthulhu.

D&D does count both Lovecraftian fiction and its games as significant influences.

Reasonable precautions? Sure. Two game sessions of research and tactical planning for each encounter we have? Not so much.

I think there are a lot of very reasonable precautions that can be effective in mitigating most SoD situations.

 

[billd91]

BRG - take the following example.

AD&D PC with 10 HP is successfully hit by a snake which has a SOD poison attack (pretty standard in AD&D) three times. The PC has a 50/50 chance of making his save. This character now dies 7/8 times or 87.5% of the time. And the chances actually don't significantly change even if you double his chance of saving. If he saves 75% of the time, he still dies 60% of the time in this scenario.

Now, the same PC his hit three times by a monster that does d8 points of damage. The chances of this PC outright dying are 12.5% (three hits doing either 7 or 8 points/hit to drive the PC into -10), gets dropped into negatives about 60% of the time and walks away about 20% of the time.

So, yes, save or die significantly reduces the randomness of an encounter. To the tune that the same encounter is now EIGHT TIMES more likely to kill the PC.

What do you expect to happen when a venomous snake bites you three times? Frankly, if the venom is at all deadly, I'd expect to die. Yet, via the saving throws in the game, some PCs manage to survive certain death. What this indicates is a fundamental difference in expectations. Some of us seem to expect a little more verisimilitude in our game environments. Deadly creature in real life that kills you via methods other than simply battering you = deadly creature in game life that kills you via methods other than simply battering you.

I'll grant that save or die may be a bad mechanic if you expect every challenge you might face to whittle you down via hit point ablation. But that's actually a terrible mechanic if you expect some effects to be able to bypass hit point ablation like charms, transformations, or stun settings on phasers and blaster rifles. There's no objective reason either makes for a better game - rather just better fits to certain types of expectations.

And let's be honest here, no DM worth his salt is going to bomb an elder wyrm red dragon on the party before they are ready to take it on. Might as well declare "rocks fall everyone dies."

Well, let's not impugn people's DMing abilities because you think they're having badwrongfun. If the party is trekking through a wilderness known to be near an elder wyrm's lair, it stands to reason that dragon may be a (probably rare) random encounter. That would be entirely appropriate for a sandbox campaign. This, of course, doesn't mean all hope is necessarily lost since that encounter may be at enough distance for the PCs to hide under decent cover.