Your character died. Big deal.

[Scribble]

Not so. D&D, thankfully, hasn't embraced "death flag" mechanics.

When did I say anything about death flag mechanics?

A Dagger does 1d4 damage. Technically by the rules if I cram a dagger into myself it will do 1d4 damage. If I have 15 HP it won't kill me. I've automatically avoided death.

For it to make sense, you need to not do things that don't make sense. This has always been the case in D&D.

So if a system that allows you to avoid dying from things that should kill you is too much for you, then D&D has always in some way been too much for you.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, there's the difference that people actually have a preference for it, for one.

If you really believe that no one has a preference for a game in which they are not paralyzed during combat, you certainly disagree with at least one WotC article that specifically called it "unfun". Likewise rust monsters and sunder. Someone, obviously, has a preference for a game in which equipment cannot be destroyed.

If we are on that slippery slope, somebody's poured syrup all over it.

There is a difference between being at the top of the slide and being at the bottom. Not being at the bottom yet doesn't mean that you're not at the top.

Dubious. You're talking about James Bond. If the game does anything at all well, it ought to be encouraging me to take risks. Otherwise, I'm failing to take risks that I otherwise would take, because I'm frikkin' James Bond.

One of the things that the more recent movie captured well, and the Sean Connery films also captured well, IMHO, is that Bond doesn't expect to come back. The reason Bond doesn't worry about his longterm health or relationships is that he doesn't expect there to be a long term. Likewise, the reason Bond never moves on Moneypenny is because he really does care for her, and he cannot be there for her.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that Bond takes less risks in the average Bond movie than PCs take in the average D&D adventure, BTW, even though the PCs know that death is a real risk.

Finally, let's look at Conan. He's frikkin' Conan. Yet one of the first things REH tells us about Conan is that he is dead. He died so long ago that his bones are now dust. He is no less mortal than us. All of his escapades eventually amount to nothing, and Conan is subject to great melancholies because he knows it.

REH was also fond of the story told from the POV of a reincarnation of the hero, so that the hero can die at the end, despite his victory (or, in a few cases, lack thereof). In fact, some of the REH stories can seem like he is writing about a series of characters, each run by the same player. "I was X, and yet I was not X. I could dimly remember the story of X's life." (Not an actual quote!)

Moorcock might be known for the "Eternal Champion", but REH beat him to the concept (if not the term) by a long shot.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

When did I say anything about death flag mechanics?

A Dagger does 1d4 damage. Technically by the rules if I cram a dagger into myself it will do 1d4 damage. If I have 15 HP it won't kill me. I've automatically avoided death.

Nah. D&D 1e was explicit that if it didn't make sense, the DM didn't have to go with the roll.

BTW, I just noticed your sig. Congrats on getting married!

 

[Mallus]

"There is, IMHO, no difference between preferring survival-guaranteed and preferring no-paralysis-guaranteed" =/= "There is, IMHO, no difference between survival-guaranteed and preferring no-paralysis-guaranteed."

Okay. But if you recognize the sizable difference between a) and b) then surely can can see the reasons for preferring a) over b).

Don't try to cloud the issue with ad hominem attacks.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Your phrasing gave me a bit of a headache.

In the case of, say, a James Bond movie, the audience cannot predetermine the outcome, and is not in control of Bond's actions.

No they aren't... but that's not relevant.

The audience knows that there is a limit to what can happen to Bond.

Yes. He'll not only survive, he'll succeed (though he'll probably take a few lumps and a girl --might-- get killed).

The audience doesn't, however, want to believe that Bond knows that he is in no real danger.

I doubt most audience members ever think about that. They're too busy suspending their own disbelief enough in order to find Bond's hi-jinks exciting to worry whether 007 recognizes his own plot-immunity.

That is, until Charlie Kaufman writes the next Bond movie, which is all about Bond becoming impotent after realizing he's a fictional character who's never in any real danger. Let's call it "Shaken, not Stirring".

If, in those mechanics, the dangers are not real, then you are likely (based upon your knowledge of same) to take risks that you wouldn't otherwise take.

Either you're willing to pretend fake dangers are real or you aren't. It's no more complicated than that.

Just not one with the same risks.

Let's end on a high note. Agreed. As I've said before, death-lite is not without it's drawbacks, and to some gamers, those drawbacks are completely unacceptable.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Going back to a question that has been asked before and I haven't seen an answer yet:

Why even have a Save for Save or Die powers? If the only responsible/fair use for them is providing ways for the players to predict the risk and prepare a failure-safe counter-measure, why do we still have a Save at all?
Is it a mechanic that is there to give "bad" players a chance?
Is it to reward system mastery for players that ensures that their Saves are "unbeatable" or that they never have to make the save in question (like for example casting a permanent Death Ward on themselves, or having a contingency spell prepared to cover Petrification and Death Effects?)

The latter would certainly make sense with 3E that rewarded system mastery by offering "powerful" options alongside weak options. But do we really want to reward system mastery at all in an ideal version of D&D?

 

[Scribble]

Nah. D&D 1e was explicit that if it didn't make sense, the DM didn't have to go with the roll.

There's that narration thing again. What makes sense to one person might not make sense to others. By the rules a character can survive a dagger attack. You're left to your own devices to determine where you want the rules to bow out.

It does not specify the dagger only does 1d4 damage when you're not attacking yourself.

If you've chosen to interpret attacking yourself as instant death, that's fine. But nothing in the rules prevents it from being equally valid to choose to survive. (Since you have enough HP to take the damage.)

BTW, I just noticed your sig. Congrats on getting married!

Thanks!

 

[Lacyon]

There is a difference between being at the top of the slide and being at the bottom. Not being at the bottom yet doesn't mean that you're not at the top.

Death is still likely or guaranteed if you pick a fight with an opponent (or hazard, or what have you) that outmatches you.

There is a great deal of tools you can use to determine when an opponent (or hazard, or what have you) outclasses a group of PCs.

There's not, to my awareness, anything indicating that such opponents cannot and should not occasionally threaten PCs.

It's more like being aware that a slide exists.

PS: Before this goes on much longer, I'd like to say thanks, RC. This discussion has been a really good one I think, and some of your larger posts have really helped me to see some areas where I might be able to improve my games. We have our disagreements, but hashing them out has helped me. I hope you get something out of it too

 

[Delta]

And that's how I see SoD. Even if you are armed with the knowledge that there is a SoD ahead (You decoded the GMs hints that it's there, or used a divination spell to deduce such facts) how does it change things?

... Where does one put that on the power level match up?

Largely in the realm of player-skill (see the "challenge the players thread"). Which lots of us old-schoolers (and old new-schoolers that I introduce the game to) prefer.

- Gaze-turns-to-stone? Close your eyes or get a mirror.
- Charming song? Plug your ears or counter-song.
- Finger of death? Go craft a scarab of protection.
- Other? Get a rogue to backstab 'em before they can act.

Etc., etc.

(Again, a "fold now" card misses the analogy of SOD pretty badly, and you're not addressing that, but whatever.)

 

[Delta]

Going back to a question that has been asked before and I haven't seen an answer yet: Why even have a Save for Save or Die powers?

For this you have to go back to the origins of D&D, and really why there are saves in the first place. Answer: So even when everything goes wrong, your hero still has a chance to survive. But, you don't get to choose when. It could happen at any time, so actual risk is in the picture of the actual life-or-death encounter. It's a gift that you look to the dice to give you. It's a "happy little accident", and that's what makes it a game (and not a story).

See explanation on saves in 1E DMG.

 

[AndrewRogue]

Largely in the realm of player-skill (see the "challenge the players thread"). Which lots of us old-schoolers (and old new-schoolers that I introduce the game to) prefer.

- Gaze-turns-to-stone? Close your eyes or get a mirror.
- Charming song? Plug your ears or counter-song.
- Finger of death? Go craft a scarab of protection.
- Other? Get a rogue to backstab 'em before they can act.

Etc., etc.

(Again, a "fold now" card misses the analogy of SOD pretty badly, and you're not addressing that, but whatever.)

But those aren't really player challenges at this point (its not like the answers are particularly clever or unexpected anymore, and, besides, they can also easily be dealt with in game means as well), and, again, asks the question of why bother with the save part. It essentially amounts to a checklist. Either you breeze through the difficult part of the fight, or you get horribly maimed.

Furthermore (and I realize this is all a taste thing, so keep in mind that this is all IMO type stuff) it furthers a very dull, checklist type of gameplay. Do you have tool X to negate monster ID Y? If yes, continue, if no, game over. Hell, at high levels in 3.X, it gets particularly obnoxious and basically requires arms racing unless you are specifically ignoring a very prominent part in the game.