What's the Problem with Save-or-Die?

[GSHamster]

To me, Save-or-Die is not fun because it is not interactive. The target cannot make decisions to prevent the death, all she can rely on is random chance.

I like Save-or-Die because it is an Alternate Win Condition, and Alternate Win Conditions are fun and make life more interesting. But there should be some gameplay involved.

Like maybe the Medusa has to hit her gaze target 3 times before he turns to stone, and you can avoid the attack by fighting blind or using a mirror (with appropriate penalties). And then the medusa tries to smash the mirror. Interaction.

 

[kitsune9]

That seems very common. If adventurers have to face 1-2 SoDs per adventure, then PC death becomes quite common. Of course, the solution to this is a variety of spells and items that provide SoD immunity . . .

SoD immunity helps too. Always good to get in a good buff to protect you against it.

 

[Mattachine]

My point was that the immunity buffs are actually poor design--they lead to the arms race we had in 3e with effects-->immunities-->immunity-busters-->immunnity-buster-busters. Yuck.

Many myths and stories feature POW! instant-loss magic, like being turned into a pig, being petrified, or outright death. Many of us are not playing a story or myth--we're playing a game. As others said, common effects that cause a player to be out for 30-45 minutes of a 2 hour game session are, well, sad.

If 5e simply provides options, whether a dial, different versions of monsters and spells, or clearly outlined mechanics to use (hp threshold, SSSoD, or just SoD), then myself and many others will be happy.

Some will only be happy if 5e plays SoD in one particular way. I feel sorry for those players, since most will be disappointed.

 

[jodyjohnson]

IME many of the SoD effects aren't Save or Die in flavor but become SoD because of the metagame way they are used.

If I cast Sleep on something it should be because Sleep is the desired outcome, otherwise skip the spell and go straight to just killing.

Hold, paralysis, petrification, poison have all this flavor potential but usually boil down to 'I use this magic to make cutting his throat easier'.

From a story perspective, the way SoD work in play from the players is backwards from everything I'd like combats to look like.

The way they get used is based on the mechanics not the story or motivations. Cast SoD because it makes more mechanical sense than beating through his HP. But you'd never waste a Stone to Flesh on anything less than the Big Bad.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I wouldn't have much problem with insta-kill effects just doing lots of damage. Its the non-lethal effects that shouldn't be reduced to mere hp loss. Paralysis, petrification, mind control, and being turned into a newt are all non-lethal.

Oh I agree. In fact recently I've written quite a few monsters that are all about powerful non-damaging effects. And these monsters are for the "Everyone does damage" edition, 4e.

Btw, I've never actually heard anyone IRL or online say that spells/attacks should just do damage. It seems to be a total misconception.

 

[howandwhy99]

I voted No, I like Save or Die. I don't care either for Save or your out of the game or Save or you never can get your PC back.

They are only available to spellcasters.
Every class has means of killing or at least taking control of another PC. For basic SoD, assassins can make assassination attacks and everyone can attempt a coup de grace.

They can kill with only one die roll.
Lots of stuff can do this. I think it's more about "is there no means to come back?" maybe even shortly, in the game. Quick character generation also has something to do with this turn around of game play (not a bad idea to have a back up on hand either).

They can kill on the first round.
So can anyone who catches a character asleep.

They are all or nothing.
As powerful as SoD effects are I don't see the need to increase this.

They are too lethal.
That's kind of the point of the mechanic, but I can see having them be less frequent. If every creature can Black Mamba kill you, then life on that rock is pretty tough. I see rarity as a setting option, like Darksun.

The reason I have no problem with SoD in the game is because I prefer to play in games designed to support temporary PC loss (with known possibly eventual permanent PC loss) without instigating a player riot every time such a situation crops up.

I want long term Domination effects. I want permanent Charm with later saves by situation (like Invisibility). I want long term paralysis (aka petrifaction) without deleting the character from the game. I want PC loss due to Alignment shift with the possibility of switching him or her back. I want to be able to build traps that can kill characters if their players just try to blithely charge through them. I want poison that can stop a heart from beating. I want others things to be able to die or end too... like magical disjunction, magical metallic rusting, soul stealing, dispel magic, and so on.

[you know, petrifaction works almost like (normal) death, except you need an 11th level M-U instead of a 10th level Cleric to help you out. Plus the body's a PITA to carry. I think this is why Stone to Flesh is arcane 6th level, while Raise Dead is divine 5th.]

 

[Ahnehnois]

To me, the biggest issue is simply the frequency of their application.

There's also the availability being limited to casters.

...

It's actually very important that a character can die with a single roll. Or even without one. Anything that gives the players a sense of control or entitlement takes away the meaning of combat. A character does not have a right to live, a player does not have the right to play a particular character, and a DM does not have to let the players win every battle.

That said, if rolls where a character has a 5% chance or greater of dying outright are common, it's hard to run a coherent campaign. A good DM doesn't use these things often, but does use them impactfully at his discretion.

 

[Mattachine]

The reason I have no problem with SoD in the game is because I prefer to play in games designed to support temporary PC loss (with known possibly eventual permanent PC loss) without instigating a player riot every time such a situation crops up.

I want long term Domination effects. I want permanent Charm with later saves by situation (like Invisibility). I want long term paralysis (aka petrifaction) without deleting the character from the game. I want PC loss due to Alignment shift with the possibility of switching him or her back. I want to be able to build traps that can kill characters if their players just try to blithely charge through them. I want poison that can stop a heart from beating. I want others things to be able to die or end too... like magical disjunction, magical metallic rusting, soul stealing, dispel magic, and so on.

[you know, petrifaction works almost like (normal) death, except you need an 11th level M-U instead of a 10th level Cleric to help you out. Plus the body's a PITA to carry. I think this is why Stone to Flesh is arcane 6th level, while Raise Dead is divine 5th.]

I see this, and I hear you. Do the players mind when their valuable play time ends up being sidelined due to a single die roll? Unless you let backup PCs simply appear after character is out of commission, that player is going to be doing nothing for an hour, no?

The last time I was in a campaign the featured SoD (the 3e City of the Spider Queen), players would pack up and go home when their PCs died. This wasn't out of anger or petulance, but because they knew they wouldn't be able to play until the next session. Again, it happens whenever PCs die, but single die rolls that mean the player is out of the game that day aren't fun in my group.

I suppose, in some more competitive groups, sidelining players could be fun. It means that they "lost" that day, and the penalty is not being able to play D&D as much.


For many of us arguing for less SoD (and more flexible uses of it), we are arguing from a standpoint of the players--real players with limited time, wanting to have fun. For us, having fun means playing the game, not watching the others because your rogue got zapped by the slay living glyph of warding.

 

[howandwhy99]

SNIP good stuff

For many of us arguing for less SoD (and more flexible uses of it), we are arguing from a standpoint of the players--real players with limited time, wanting to have fun. For us, having fun means playing the game, not watching the others because your rogue got zapped by the slay living glyph of warding.

Hey, I hear you too. I played and ran 3.x for several years. I do not go back to it overjoyed. Even so I'm currently playing in a monthly 21st level every-book-goes gestalt game where building the PC is most of the time spent playing. I kid you not.

And no, in my OD&D game players do not sit out an hour. As I mentioned in the other thread, PCs take 10 minutes to create. Back ups can be made beforehand. Getting back into the game can even be as easy as "I'll play Gezry the hired torchbearer". As players act as a group (by choice, individual and even private actions are accommodated too) returning smack dab into the rampant conversation the players are having (be it combat, exploration, interrogation, or whatever, all while I as DM mostly listen) can be short and sweet.

As I posted just a few posts up, I have no desire to play or run a game that sidelines Players. I want everybody in, the more the merrier. I like death to be a temporary setback (albeit a sizable and costly one), but also have the possibility of permanence. Tossing down vials of cyanide is not only pricey for the res, but ultimately deadly if you make it a habit. What I don't want is to exile a player from playing, keeping their starting end easy helps that.

I suspect D&DN will have quick character generation. It's popular again. I suspect SoD will be optional with variable lethality, rarity, and different mechanics to choose from. I have to admit, my game has every character begin at 0 XP no matter the level of anyone in the party much less one's old PC. It is not the way everyone plays D&D and I wouldn't expect it to be. But the game is designed to handle characters of variable levels too, from top to bottom. Do I expect this ever, even as an option in D&DN? No, I highly doubt it, but I'll play the game for what it is when I do.

 

[Mattachine]

Fair enough, howandwhy.

I used to play in the vein you are playing now. These days, my campaigns are heavy with roleplay and characterization (and combat), and there are no hirelings/henchmen to bring in, and none of my players wants to run multiple PCs.

I will say this, shorter combats (in real world time) would help out any SoD situation quite a bit, since it would mean less time for players to sit out.