Your character died. Big deal.

[Raven Crowking]

Of course there were choices. The same types of choices that lead to any encounter, regardless of whether it has the possibility of save-or-die effects. Since these choices are the same either way, they are irrelevant.

I don't think so.

(1) I decide to strip down and dance in the lava. That is a choice, and if my DM allows me a save I am lucky to have it.

(2) I enter a dungeon that is the known lair of a medusa. I don't know it, though, because I chose not to use Gather Information, or to role-play gathering information, or to do anything to increase my knowledge, and therefore my ability to prepare for it. When I meet the medusa, I get a save, and I am lucky to have it.

The choices I make definitely affect the odds of my surviving an encounter with a save-or-die effect. As do my choices in any other circumstance. It is simple to cry "Woe is me! Oh noesss! Bad DM! Bad game system!" but that doesn't make it the correct response.

RC

 

[Hussar]

Heh, yes, because, every medusa out there is registered in the local Medusa Watch book and you must always be able to learn that they are there. They are also mentally retarded and leave victims out and about for other people to stumble on and learn of their presence.

Oh, and they MUST stock Stone to Flesh scrolls as well.

 

[apoptosis]

None, if nothing else is at stake. The death-lite approach makes the assumption that other consequences for failure exist, that there are other things at stake (such as the PC's kingdom getting destroyed if they don't stop the tarrasque).

If all you do in a campaign is kill things and take their stuff, then death-lite is the wrong technique to use.

I wanted to say this about 2 pages ago.

This goes back to play games with rules (or house rules) that support the goals of the players/characters.

In a game where killing things and taking their stuff is the goal then taking death off of the table (where the consequence is that this character can no longer do that) is probably going to lessen the fun of the game (except for those who are interested in the mack bolan style of play).

 

[Fifth Element]

(2) I enter a dungeon that is the known lair of a medusa. I don't know it, though, because I chose not to use Gather Information, or to role-play gathering information, or to do anything to increase my knowledge, and therefore my ability to prepare for it. When I meet the medusa, I get a save, and I am lucky to have it.

Are you saying such information will always be available? That the players will always be able to find out what's behind the next door? I suggest such circumstances are mythological.

It is simple to cry "Woe is me! Oh noesss! Bad DM! Bad game system!" but that doesn't make it the correct response.

If that's how you're going to characterize certain posters in this thread, we would all be better off if you stayed out of it, I think. Stick with the points being discussed, and leave out the hyperbolic dismissiveness.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There is a two step process that's cruicial here:

- Percieving the actual threat.
- Making a decision on how to deal with the threat.

I would agree with this, but IME, the "Save or Die" room is yet another gloss of mythology. Now it is not the encounter, and how the encounter is dealt with, but the room itself that makes you save or die.

Maybe you have had experiences with really bad DMs -- the kind of lazy DM that doesn't care to think through encounters, perhaps -- but IMHO and IME creatures leave signs of their existence, which in turn allows you to predict the type of creature(s) you are liable to meet long before you meet them.

If a party is entering an abandoned tomb, which they believe hasn't been opened in centuries, it makes sense to expect undead and/or constructs. And traps. It also makes sense to consider that the tomb has actually been breached and now has living beings making part or all of it into their home. D&D in all editions (except, perhaps 4e?) has had more than ample means to allow you to have some idea of what you'd meet.

Even in infamous meat grinders like the original Tomb of Horrors -- the King of Save or Die (if you even get a Save) -- you had a chance to perceive and deal with a threat before you made a potentially lethal save. And if you were unable to recognize threats for what they were, you certainly discovered the need for caution in that dungeon. I took the entire group of "Name" characters from the back of the Rogue's Gallery into that one (as a player) and managed to get them all slaughtered. But that was bad play on my part; I would certainly have been capable of better had I used a bit of forethought.

Divination spells have been provided since Day One for a reason. Although they are not as flashy as fireballs, they are, in fact, the most valuable spells in the game. Players ignore them at their peril.....or, at least, they do so in games where there is a risk of death.

I have seen one or two bad DMs who revel in PC deaths. I have never played with them twice, however. And, in the end, I haven't known any of these DMs who was capable of sustaining a player group. For obvious reasons, I should think.

OTOH, I have seen many, many players who drift from group to group, always wanting the game to be about them, seldom contribuiting to the group as a whole, and always complaining that the DM is a bad DM because dancing naked in molten rock turns out to be a bad idea.

In conclusion, if your DM likes to spring SoD on you without any chance for you to perceive a threat, without any chance to make any choices relevant to the threat, and so on, that is simply bad DMing. Of course, radically more powerful monsters have the same effect as SoD in this case, so removing SoD is unlikely to help all that much.

For the most part, I stand by my statement that the complaint arises less from incompetent DMs and more from players who mythologize their failures so as to avoid responsibility for them. The "My bad DM killed me and I had no chance to do anything" problem is, IMHO, far more mythology than fact.

Individual cases may vary.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Are you saying such information will always be available? That the players will always be able to find out what's behind the next door? I suggest such circumstances are mythological.

Assuming that you haven't massively house ruled the system, the availability of information is not very different from the availability of combat prowess. Divination magic is more precious than fireballs, and if you retreat when the offensive spells are gone, you should seriously consider retreat when the information gathering spells are gone, too.

However, no creature should live in a vaccuum. If your DM is throwing monsters that skew the local ecology at you, while leaving no signs of said skewing, then there is a problem. And it is not a problem with the game system.

See previous post.

If that's how you're going to characterize certain posters in this thread, we would all be better off if you stayed out of it, I think. Stick with the points being discussed, and leave out the hyperbolic dismissiveness.

How did you get to be king, then, eh? I didn't vote for you.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

I would agree with this, but IME, the "Save or Die" room is yet another gloss of mythology. Now it is not the encounter, and how the encounter is dealt with, but the room itself that makes you save or die.

I think your comprehension will improve if you stop reading things so literally. A "save or die" room is shorthand.

In conclusion, if your DM likes to spring SoD on you without any chance for you to perceive a threat, without any chance to make any choices relevant to the threat, and so on, that is simply bad DMing.

There's some truth to that. And many people think it's a good thing that the 4E rules were designed to help overcome such bad DMing, by nearly eliminating SoD stuff. Not everyone has any real choice in DMs. Sometimes a bad DM is the only one around.

 

[Fifth Element]

How did you get to be king, then, eh? I didn't vote for you.

No claims of being king here, Mr. Crowking. But like any poster I am entitled to request that another poster not be rude in his responses.

 

[Rackhir]

The "Oh your imaginary friend died, get over it, it's just a game." argument never really sat well with me and it took a long time for me to finally figure out why.

Imaginary or not, characters in a long term campaign do represent a significant and substantial investment of both time and effort. A six hour session 2-4 times a month over a couple of years, is not a minor amount of time. Then there's the out of game time spent working up character sheets, planning out future levels, trying out different class/item/buff combos, writing up replies, posts, story hour entries, selecting spell load-outs, etc...

Anything that I have spent that much time on and invested that much effort in, is something I have a right to get seriously annoyed at if it gets casually trashed or wrecked.

Besides as far as character deaths go. If you kill them, then the suffering stops...

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think your comprehension will improve if you stop reading things so literally. A "save or die" room is shorthand.

Granted. But, then, my whole point is that the complaint relies on a "shorthand" that removes the actual choices/information available.

There's some truth to that.

Thank you.

And many people think it's a good thing that the 4E rules were designed to help overcome such bad DMing, by nearly eliminating SoD stuff. Not everyone has any real choice in DMs. Sometimes a bad DM is the only one around.

Of course, then we should hope that 5e removes monsters more powerful than the PCs, so that such bad DMing can be overcome as well......

Personally, I'm not a big fan of this line of reasoning (he said, stating the obvious). Removing SoD monsters removes an element of the game that is not easily replaced in any other way. A medusa was scary not because of its combat prowess, but because it could turn you to stone. This meant that you needed to be clever to overcome certain monsters, and that there were sometimes better methods than melee combat to deal with threats. There is a certain....mental elasticity....that these monsters promote. They encourage players to think outside the box.

And, if you cannot find a good DM, you always have the option to become one.


RC