Your character died. Big deal.

[GrumpyOldMan]

It's not just about death. It's about managing the level of randomness, and putting more focus on the player's choices, and ability to play.

No argument from me here, more focus on the players choices is the most important thing IMO.

Poker is based on a random hand of cards being dealt to each player. A good poker player, can then look at his hand, and get a rough idea of the percentage chance of it being a "good" hand based on what cards they are. He then decides whether to continue betting, knowing when to hold em, and when to fold em...

A D&D player can do a similar trick with his PC. He can look at his stats, current HP, powers etc, and know roughly what his chances of survival are, with a level of randomness based on dice rolls.

The poker player is pitting his ability to play the game vrs his opponents. The D&D player is doing a similar thing. he's pitting his ability to play against the challenges the DM tosses at him.

A good poker player uses his knowledge of the game/cards/math/opponents to his advantage.

A good D&D "player" does the same. He knows his character, his abilities, his teammates.

<snip>

I don’t think that the poker analogy is very good. At least, it doesn’t work for me.

When I sit at the gaming table it’s to have fun with my friends. I have always regarded games rules as “more your actual guidelines” . In my games having fun is ALWAYS more important than rules. It is possible to play ANY rpg this way, most of them have the equivalent of a “rule zero” which says “have fun.” I don’t know about 4th edition DnD, but earlier editions did (or something similar). Unfortunately you can’t play poker like this (more’s the pity – I might be able to win).

Also your idea of a good D&D "player" is, apparently different to mine. A good player (to me) is one who has his (or her) character react as a ‘real’ person would act under the circumstances. This is not likely to be the same as playing the odds, but I’m prepared to give a lot of leeway to players who do this. A D&D player CAN “look at his stats, current HP, powers etc, and know roughly what his chances of survival are” but that is NOT the only way to play.

I'd be wiling to bet that the majority of gamers out there prefer the game to challenge their ability to play it, and not just determine their level of luck...

I’d like to think that the majority of of gamers out there prefer the game to be an enjoyable time had with friends, regardless of their knowledge of rules. But, perhaps we’re both wrong.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"Save Save Save or Die" is the same as "Save or Die", just with better odds. Either you have SoD spells in your campaign, or you haven't. But just tweaking the odds doesn't change the game in a fundamental way.

I wrote "I fully agree", but on second consideration, I don't.

I think it depends very much on how you tweak the odds. SoD tweaked so that death is almost always the result, for example, would obviously change the game in a fundamental way.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

What is the basis for this judgement of relative importance? Presumably a player playing in a death-flag-style game of D&D has already decided (i) that they want to use a particular PC as a focus for participation in the game, and (ii) that they do not object to the GM throwing in complications such as being lost in a dungeon eating rats and being chased by a minotaur.

In the case of (i), we note that within a death-flag-style game that the player can still change PCs. In fact, there is nothing within that style that mandates that it is the given PC that is desireable.

In the case of (ii), we note that there is no qualitative difference between a death-flag-style game and a GM-complications-of-any-other-type-flag-style game.

Maybe it would be. But death-flag play is not motivated by the thought "I don't like Z; let's just have Y," in which "Y" is Z-lite. Death-flag play is motivated by the though "I don't like Z, so let's have Y instead" where Z is something disliked (eg thematically/aesthetically unsatisfying play) and Y is something like (eg thematically satisfying play, in which thematically arbitrary PC death should play no part).

IME, this is not true. The few death-flag games I have had the misfortune to be involved with have been very "I don't like Z; let's just have Y", often followed by a realization that they didn't really like Y either, so let's have X, etc. I realize, of course, that my experience in this matter might differ greatly from your own.

Typically it is not, although for some players it may be the most important issue - because if the player is allowed to keep the same character, AND if the player is allowed to develop the backstory and the ongoing story of that character, THEN the player automatically enjoys quite a bit of further authorial control.

IME, also, this "authorial control" is rather similar to that of DMs who won't allow the players to change their precious campaign worlds because they want "authorial control" not only over the initial set-up, but also over what the future holds.

I personally find neither of these sorts of "authorial control" conducive to good gaming. Of course, YMMV, and my experience may be colouring my position here.


RC

 

[Janx]

Save or Die would be akin to adding a card into the poker deck that says "fold now."

While it might be interesting for a bit, overall it doesn't really add to the player's invlvement of the game. There's nothing the player can really do to account for it, aside from hope he doesn't get dealt the card. Even if he's got all his math down, knows all the strategies in the world, and could be considered the "best" poker player, drawing the fold now card invalidates all that. Blam... sucker!

Since there isn't a way to really compensate for it, it just kind of sits there as a thing the player just hopes doesn't happen and the player feels kind of cheated when it does. All that time and energy spent becoming a better player is pointless.

I'd be wiling to bet that the majority of gamers out there prefer the game to challenge their ability to play it, and not just determine their level of luck...

actually, that's a bad analogy. Save or Die is not like getting a Fold Now card (that's no big deal). It's more like this:
you get dealt AA on the pre-flop. You raise a good amount. Some idiot with 72o calls. Flop comes out, and there's a 2 and some other random crap (he's got a pair of 2s, you got aces). You raise again, and stupid calls. Turn comes up with a useless card. You raise. Dork boy calls. River comes up with a 7. You raise again. Dork boy calls. He's got 7722, you got AA. He sucked it out on the river with a pre-flop hand he should have folded, and should have folded the entire time because a pair of 2's was so weak up until the river. That's a bad beat.

It sucks when it happens, and it happens because the idiot player doesn't care about winning or losing, he just wants to see the next card.

It's like children sword fighting with sticks. They think it's about making the sticks clack together. It's about stabbing the other guy and taking his stuff.

 

[Fifth Element]

"Save Save Save or Die" is the same as "Save or Die", just with better odds.

No, it's really not. If you're only looking at the math (the percentage chance that the three saves are failed), you're missing the point. The point is, after the first failed save, the player has a chance to react to the new circumstances.

I think that's why many people don't like SoD: the perception of helplessness. One second, you're okay. Then one roll later, and you're out of the game. With save-save-save or die, or what have you, you have a chance to counter the effect or the creature or whatever, because you're not just making three rolls instead of one. You have decision points in between the rolls. This is a critical difference. Even if you fail and ultimately succumb to the effect, you had a chance. You weren't helpless.

 

[Rackhir]

Permission to sig the following quote?

You do know that's just a slighly changed knock off of a line from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"?

It's at about 2:40 in this clip.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434[/ame]

 

[Scribble]

Nor is it an apt analogy, which is why I spent so much time earlier pointing out that what occurs in the game is the result of choices, not something that simply happens out of the blue. Unless you have a bad DM, having death as a possibility -- or having SoD effects in the game -- doesn't require you to have a "fold card" in the deck.

I'm going to disagree with this analogy. Honest question: Do you actually play poker? I can't tell one way or the other.

(1) Luck is inherently a part of poker. There's a phrase called "bad beat" for when a poker player does everything correct, was ahead in the hand, and still gets beaten anyway. It's specifically a mark of a good poker player that they can emotionally take a "bad beat" and deal with it. (IMO it's actually the most interesting thing about the game!)

I do, but not with any regularity. I'm not very good at it.

But I think you're dissagreeing with a point I'm not trying to make. Or I'm not doing a good job communicating that point. Which is the more likely case, as I'm posting while at work, and it was the end of the day, and sometimes I ramble.

I'm NOT arguing that death shouldn't be a part of the game, or that all of the randomness should be removed. Those elements are very important to the game. Sometimes the dice just roll low, and you get screwed.

Poker analogy aside, what I AM saying is that the randomness needs to be tempered, and controlled to a degree. When I enter a D&D fight, there are several things happening that let me see the degree of the challange and modify my strategies to suit.

If I enter the battle, and the creature takes a swing, I can get a rough idea of the creatures strength. He hits well, or he does a lot of damage. I can then say either I think I can take em, or Oh crap lets ditch. It even teaches me a bit about what strategies work well, what strategies don't. Random dice should modify this event. That's part of the fun.

Put a SoD into the mix though, and things change. None of the buffers I normally utilize to learn about an enemy are in effect. I don't get that "oh man, I gotta ditch!" moment. It ALL resides on hoping I make my save. If I don't make that save, then that's it.

Turning it into a save save or die gives you a slight buffer zone. It's not a huge thing. It's still going to kill you if you don't react properly, or quickly, just like the heavy hitter will still kill you if you keep trying to go toe to toe. It's just not forcing you to rely soley on hoping your dice roll well.

Raven: I get what you're saying about the DM throwing things in there to alert the players about the pending SoD danger... The issue I have is that you're now no longer relying on the game. You're relying on the imagination of the players, and everyone's imagination is different. What's clearly obvious to you, could be completely opposite of what I'm seeing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, it's really not. If you're only looking at the math (the percentage chance that the three saves are failed), you're missing the point. The point is, after the first failed save, the player has a chance to react to the new circumstances.

But, even so, there is some "final" save, which is the same as the first save in a SoD game.

If I have SoD or 10 saves then SoD, I still have SoD.

You do know that's just a slighly changed knock off of a line from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"?

Indeed. The line about "How did you get to be king, then?" is from the same, just badly mauled because I was going by memory....being too lazy to look it up.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm NOT arguing that death shouldn't be a part of the game, or that all of the randomness should be removed. Those elements are very important to the game. Sometimes the dice just roll low, and you get screwed.

With you so far.

what I AM saying is that the randomness needs to be tempered, and controlled to a degree. When I enter a D&D fight, there are several things happening that let me see the degree of the challange and modify my strategies to suit.

Again, I agree. However, I don't think that the randomness needs to be temprered only through game mechanics. Part of good play, in the old school sense anyway, is to temper randomness through the choices that you make.

Raven: I get what you're saying about the DM throwing things in there to alert the players about the pending SoD danger... The issue I have is that you're now no longer relying on the game. You're relying on the imagination of the players, and everyone's imagination is different. What's clearly obvious to you, could be completely opposite of what I'm seeing.

IMHO, relying on the imagination of the players (DM included) is the whole point of the game. I do agree that it is incumbant upon the DM to telegraph in such a way that he has communicated with his players. The mental elasticity that I talked about earlier....the things I think are actually valuabe about SoD situations.....dissolve into a fine mist if there is no foreshadowing to create tension and allow the players to have options.

Really, though, if the DM isn't communicating with his players well, is there any set of rules that will save them?


RC

 

[malraux]

But, even so, there is some "final" save, which is the same as the first save in a SoD game.

If I have SoD or 10 saves then SoD, I still have SoD.

But the primary objection to SoD was never that eventually it came down to one die roll. It was that often it involved only one die roll and that there was little a player could do beforehand. Moreover, most of the things that players could do were things like always have Death Ward going. There's little thought involved, just following the checklist of things adventures should have.

Save, save, save or die is better in that the later saves can be boosted, the effect countered, or the creature killed. It gives the party options at the time, rather than just relying on someone having played the game before and knowing the right spells to have.