The ethics of ... death

[Jester David]

I've mused a few times in my blog if the consistent risk : reward ratio of 4e was one of the reasons it developed it's "only combat" reputation.

Because monsters lacked instant kill effects (and were all roughly equal in power) there was never any reason to avoid a combat or attempt any tactics other than your standard allotment of powers. Ditto 3e, which shared "balanced" encounter generation, which meant that unless your DM was a dick you had reasonable odds of succeeding at an encounter.

 

[Li Shenron]

I've mused a few times in my blog if the consistent risk : reward ratio of 4e was one of the reasons it developed it's "only combat" reputation.

Because monsters lacked instant kill effects (and were all roughly equal in power) there was never any reason to avoid a combat or attempt any tactics other than your standard allotment of powers. Ditto 3e, which shared "balanced" encounter generation, which meant that unless your DM was a dick you had reasonable odds of succeeding at an encounter.

Well... as long as the DM is indeed always throwing encounters of "appropriate" CR...

 

[Balesir]

Anyways, I hope you get more answers; I'm curious what others will say. As always, play what you like

Well, I can only really answer from the point of view of playing HarnMaster, the one game I play these days that has "save-or-die" in a major way. HM is a system made for long, continuous campaigns, though the main 'long game' I was in ended due to the GM's death (the person, not a character).

HM is quite different from traditional D&D in its approach to SoD, though. It's quite rare to have "instant" death in combat; generally it's more protracted, with several failures needed for death, albeit those failures might be quite likely for a very bad wound. This seems to suit extended campaigns quite well, since it maintains a real sense of constant, uncontrollable risk (an important facet of the "realistic" style of play) but still allows players some leverage to keep characters alive (even if maimed).

I've mused a few times in my blog if the consistent risk : reward ratio of 4e was one of the reasons it developed it's "only combat" reputation.

Because monsters lacked instant kill effects (and were all roughly equal in power) there was never any reason to avoid a combat or attempt any tactics other than your standard allotment of powers. Ditto 3e, which shared "balanced" encounter generation, which meant that unless your DM was a dick you had reasonable odds of succeeding at an encounter.

The risk is certainly no worse for 'alternative approaches'; I think it has much more to do with the lack of crunchy, interesting mechanics for other approaches, personally. 4E really could benefit from social and exploration systems as clear, sophisticated and exciting as its combat system. That would be a dream come true, IMO.

Oh, and things like "turned to stone" and "polymorphed" are save-or-get-transformed effects I really don't mind, even with hit points. They are generally quite distinct effects - usually even needing different spells to undo them (like 'stone to flesh'). I do still like the multi-stage save, though - it adds even more suspense, IME. FWIW, in our 4e game the party have actually fought medusas only once. The main defender-fighter got turned to stone in that fight, and they have elected to try 'alternative approaches' (like stealth) when encountering medusae ever since!

 

[Argyle King]

Like I said in my earlier post, I think early 4E had the right idea with SoD effects. Having multiple stages along the way is (I feel) both more dramatic and a more satisfying way to handle a lethal effect. However, what I would have done is use the disease/condition track. For a mental effect such as mind control, you'd have to make some sort of mental check to shake it off; success gets you closer to shaking it off, but failure makes the condition worse. I think having those steps and making the experience more dynamic is more fun than the binary way that saves work. It also fits into the fiction and the narrative very well; there are many stories in which the hero is trying to struggle against a power being used by an evil wizard, and the two struggle back and forth for dominance.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I would be interested in finding out if SoD supporters have shorter campaigns, or no long-running plots, due to lack of survivors to finish quests.

When playing D&D, I am usually doing long-running plots (other rpgs we tend to do short runs with).

I find it's a lot easier to have long-running plots when you don't spend so much time on battles. I only have a battle or two per session and maybe three battles or so per level, so almost all of them are meaningful, and when they're done I have time to advance the story. I do also have action points to protect characters from bad fortune, and I make resurrection hard but not impossible.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Ditto 3e, which shared "balanced" encounter generation, which meant that unless your DM was a dick you had reasonable odds of succeeding at an encounter.

I can't say that I ever used the CR system, and my idea of a "balanced" encounter is two parties of roughly equal power. While I agree with your notion that encounter design guidelines are antithetical to tactical and creative play, I would like to point out that they are only guidelines, and are not even in the SRD.

I would hope most people who play 3e (or derivatives) would understand that CR/EL and "rules" of that ilk shouldn't exist, and would not object to DMs who ignore them.

 

[Alzrius]

I've mused a few times in my blog if the consistent risk : reward ratio of 4e was one of the reasons it developed it's "only combat" reputation.

Because monsters lacked instant kill effects (and were all roughly equal in power) there was never any reason to avoid a combat or attempt any tactics other than your standard allotment of powers. Ditto 3e, which shared "balanced" encounter generation, which meant that unless your DM was a dick you had reasonable odds of succeeding at an encounter.

Er, how is that "ditto 3E"? Third Edition not only had instant kill effects, but also, as others have pointed out (emphasis mine), didn't recommend that all encounters be monsters of a CR equal to the PCs' level:

So what happened in 3rd Edition?

As far as I can tell, everybody misread the rulebook. Here’s what the 3rd Edition Dungeon Master’s Guide had to say about “Encounters and Challenge Ratings” (pg. 100):

A monster’s Challenge Rating (CR) tells you the level of the party for which the monster is a good challenge. A monster of CR 5 is an appropriate challenge for four 5th-level characters. If the characters are higher level than the monster, they get fewer XP because the monster should be easier to defeat. Likewise, if the party level [....] is lower than the monster’s Challenge Rating, the PCs get a greater reward.​

And a little later it answered the question “What’s Challenging?” (pg. 101):

Since every game session probably includes many encounters, you don’t want to make every encounter one that taxes the PCs to their limits. They would have to stop the adventure and rest for an extensive period after every fight, and that slows down the game. An encounter with an Encounter Level (EL) equal to the PCs’ level is one that should expend about 20% of their resources — hit points, spells, magic item uses, etc. This means, on average, that after about four encounters of the party’s level the PCs need to rest, heal, and regain their spells. A fifth encounter would probably wipe them out.​

And, at that point, everybody apparently stopped reading. Because this was what seeped into the collective wisdom of the gaming community: Every encounter should have an EL equal to the party’s level and the party should have four encounters per day.

I literally can’t understand how this happened, because the very next paragraph read:

The PCs should be able to take on many more encounters lower than their level but fewer encounters with Encounter Levels higher than their party level. As a general rule, if the EL is two lower than the party’s level, the PCs should be able to take on twice as many encounters before having to stop and rest. Two levels below that, and the number of encounters they can cope with doubles again, and so on.​

And if that wasn’t clear enough in saying that the PCs should be facing a wide variety of ELs, the very next page had a chart on it that said 30% of the encounters in an adventure should have an EL lower than the PCs’ level; 50% should have an EL equal to the PCs’ level; 15% should have an EL 1 to 4 higher than the PCs’ level; and 5% should have an EL 5+ higher than the PCs’ level.

But all of that was ignored and the completely erroneous “common wisdom” of “four encounters per day with an EL equal to the party’s level” became the meme of the land.

 

[N'raac]

Not necessarily. Even if the medusa is one-shotted, the effects of the initial attack could persist, forcing the PC to make, say 3 saves. For example, the first failed save might slow the target. If the character fails the second, they might be immobilized. Failing the third would mean the character turns to stone and dies. The effects for failed save might last for some meaningful time (10-15 minutes, an hour, a day - whatever "significant" is to create an obstacle that is better remedied than left to simply wear off) until the group has some way to counteract it - via magic, items (perhaps a brew concocted from the medusa's own blood) or other means. A slowed character might be able to continue; the immobilized character would probably force the group to retire or rest until either the effect improves to the character merely being slowed or wears off entirely. Death of course, and the player's rolling up a new character (or waiting until the group can get the old one to a priest, if resurrection is still in the game ...).

Requiring 3 saves to avoid death means we have the same SoD effect, with a lesser chance of "D" and some ability of the character to act in the interim. Let's assume we change Petrification from "one save or turned to stone" to "3 saves, one every second round - fail the first and you are slowed, the second and you are immobilized, and the third leaves you petrified/dead. What does this mean in-game?

To the PC, it means three chances to save instead of one. It's less likely three saves will be failed, and in the meantime the character can still act while slowed. So this is a lesser threat, but sooner or later all three saves fail and the character dies. Over time, PC's make a lot of die rolls, so one roll (however unlikely) that will have a huge impact will get rolled eventually.

What about to the wizard picking spells? Well, if he picks Stone to Flesh, the monster gets three chances to save, if he succeeds on the first he's slowed but still acting, and I have to wait until round three to see whether he will be immobilized, removing his threat. If combat is generally over in three rounds anyway, what good was that? Pick a spell more likely to work. This was the problem SoD/SoS/"save and nothing happens" spells in 1e/2e - they were too chancy, especially as saves improved at higher levels, to be worth it. Just hit him with another Magic Missile/Lightning Bolt/Cone of Cold - a least that does something every time.

I'm not a big fan of "Save or lose the character" effects. If character life is cheap, I think it does lead to players not investing in the characters. No sense spending more time on his personality, backstory, etc. just to have him killed his first time out - I'd like to spend more time playing the character than creating it. Higher death rate games, as noted above, need rapid character generation systems as well. Of course, that's back in the days of random character generation. Now, we get a lot more choice (point buy stats, feats, spell selection, etc.) If my tricked out fire wizard dies at 4th level, I guess I can always bring in an identical tricked out fire wizard to replace him. Now how impactful was that death? Plekor the Pyromaniac is dead - long live Felgar, Bringer of Flaming Death!

 

[Jester David]

Er, how is that "ditto 3E"? Third Edition not only had instant kill effects, but also, as others have pointed out (emphasis mine), didn't recommend that all encounters be monsters of a CR equal to the PCs' level:

No, just -as that article points out- that 75% should be easily succeeded by the party, and 95% should likely lead to victory and only 5% of encounters, one every level and a half, should be outright deadly.
The spread isn't that different from what 4e recommended.

When something happens 95% of the time, it's a pretty safe bet.

 

[Alzrius]

No, just -as that article points out- that 75% should be easily succeeded by the party, and 95% should likely lead to victory and only 5% of encounters, one every level and a half, should be outright deadly.
The spread isn't that different from what 4e recommended.

When something happens 95% of the time, it's a pretty safe bet.

Well, what I took away from that is that the PCs are going to use up their resources over the course of successive encounters, and since they don't know how many encounters they're going to have in a day, or what strength each encounter will be, that means that each fight will get successively more difficult (e.g. potentially deadlier) simply because the PCs have less to draw on. So I didn't see it as being quite that cut-and-dried.