Your character died. Big deal.

[Raven Crowking]

I've written this before: you're being far too literal. Please consider the context of the discussion, rather than just the three specific words being used.

It's all about the decision points, as stated earlier. It's not the fact that there's a single die roll causing death, it's this single die roll with nothing the players can do about it. And no, divination magic and Gather Information will not always (often?) do it for you.

I don't expect divination magic or Gather Information to be able to do anything in a vaccuum. I expect that the player uses his intelligence, and determines when it is judicious to do the same.

And those three words -- save or die -- imply that there were no decision points leading up to them. You realize that there is always a SoD, regardless of the effect, and then having you decision points that lead you there. Where we disagree is whether or not your decision points lead you to the SoD effect in specific instances which you refer to as "SoD" as though they were different from the others.

SSSSSSSSSSSSSoD still has an SoD in it, wherein the player can claim that no decision he makes has any meaning. Let us say that the big D (D) is Die and the little D (d) is decision. You have SdSdSdSdSdSdSdSdSdSdSdSdSoD. I am arguing that, in the general case of SoD effects that is being complained about, you have ddddddddddddSoD. It is the appearance of the multiple "d"s which is important, not the S's, or the SoD.

See the bodak example above for a non-mythological example.

Can you give a quick recap, including the level of the characters, what they have done to have the BBEG send the bodaks, and what they know about the BBEG at that point? And, in this case, does the "or Die" in "Save or Die" mean that you lose the character, or that you have to sit it out until you are restored at the end of the fight?

Because I'm betting that the example is more mythological than you think.

RC

 

[National Acrobat]

I don't know if this has been addressed in this thread or not, but does anyone's attitude change when the pcs, who have been given ample clues, warning and hints that they shouldn't do something because it will prove lethal, simply decide to ignore the warnings and do something stupid, which becomes lethality?

My group still plays 1e, and always will, although I personally have played plenty of 3e as well, and I have to say, that even though the gm I have had in 3e took many pains for several encounters that were balanced but could have been lethel without proper preparations, the group as a whole ignored the hints, warnings and what not, convinced that they could overcome, and in several cases, it ended very poorly.

While attached to their characters, they did ultimately concede they had made very poor decisions.

However, they also agreed that they probably would do so again and the dm shouldn't go easy on them because they ignored everything.

I think there comes a time when pc death just is, it just happens, and you can't fudge the dice rolls or be lenient when you have done as much as you can as a gm to move the story forward while presenting a challenging environment.

 

[Fifth Element]

I do see what you are saying, I just refuse to accept that, unless there is a die roll involved, the players can do nothing.

No one is arguing this. But see the bodak example above.

If we discuss SoD from any standpoint where it is assumed that the DM isn't out to kill you, it follows that the DM wants the players to anticipate the SoD effect. In this case, the players always have a plethora of options available to them. These options don't necessarily involve rolling dice.

And this differs from non-SoD how? You'll always do better if you know what you're coming up against. Fights can be tough or deadly, even without SoD.

The mere existence of the block creates possibilities that don'e exist without it. It becomes the gun on the wall in Act I that is fired before the end of Act V.

And the block cannot exist without SoD? Please explain. The mechanics are different to be sure, but what prevents the inclusion of such a trap?

It has nothing to do with the in-game presence of a deadly effect. It has to do with how said effect is resolved mechanically.

You can remove these effects, and still have a game. But when you remove them, you make that game focus more on actual combat and less on the player using his wits to avoid combats that include such dire chances.

That doesn't follow at all. Have you tried playing D&D without SoD effects? I have. I've found it doesn't change how players behave at all. They just enjoy knowing they won't lose a character or a fight on a single roll (and remember the context of my argument before you respond to that.)

They don't charge headlong into every battle just because they know there are no SoD effects. Do your players charge headlong into any encounter they know doesn't have SoD? If not, why would expect others to do it?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Here's another question: Is there anyone here who thinks that, if the PCs (in a non-supers game) strip naked and bathe in lava, they should survive the experience unless the players decide otherwise?

 

[Janx]

How, exactly, does one keep a baskilisk, a boadak, or a medusa, without anyone knowing it, and without leaving any sign of its existence?

a) DM forgot to add details to dungeon hinting at this
b) cleaning crews (maybe the medusa hates being reminded of her curse, so she has the statues removed)
c) teleports (as some other folks mention)
d) medusa just got there, hasn't started making statues

I would not expect your average GM to pay attention to environmental details to maintain consistency with the monsters in an area and the area itself. This would require going through the process for each monster of figuring out where it would be, why it would be there, how it would eat, sleep, work, play, etc, and who it was friends with....

It's much easier to roll on the random encounter table for the relevant environment and use the results to place monsters.


I don't have a huge problem with Save or Die effects. I hate rolling a 1 with my high level PC against such spells. Those suck. I think that's the point the anti-SoD's are making. It sucks starting an encounter with your powerful PC and getting hit with a SoD that you can't possibly fail, and rolling a 1. All those cool levels were useless. Maybe in reality there was something I could do, but at that moment, the FEELING OF HELPLESSNESS exists.

 

[Fifth Element]

I am arguing that, in the general case of SoD effects that is being complained about, you have ddddddddddddSoD.

"General case", sure. Certainly this applies much of the time. Perhaps even most of the time.

But the other times are frequent enough that a large number of players complain about it. All of my players, for instance, before I nerfed SoD effects in my games.

Really, if the DM always allows clues to be found about the SoD effect, what's the point? If they're prepared, the effect is irrelevant. If they're not, dire consequences. That's what a "gotcha" effect is. And many players dislike them intensely.

Ultimately, your argument that bad SoD situations are mythological is very dismissive, given the number of posters here who have stated that they dislike SoD. Are they to read your response as "You're just not using your wits, I would never fall for that" or "you're just not playing the game properly"? Because that's how it's coming off.

 

[Mallus]

Here's another question: Is there anyone here who thinks that, if the PCs (in a non-supers game) strip naked and bathe in lava, they should survive the experience unless they decide otherwise?

Since I apparently can't pass up answering a dumb question... no. All lava-bathers must die.

The death-lite approach assumes that players won't flaunt their plot-protection. They'll keep the player knowledge separate from their character's knowledge. Meaning the player is free to have their character take ridiculously brave actions, like any good action hero (say like John McClane, or Captain Kirk, or Conan), but they'll refrain from immediately and irrevocably suicidal behavior (say like jumping off the top of the Nakamura Tower without a helicopter to grab hold of or an awning to break their fall, trying to breathe hard vacuum, or skinny-dipping in the aforementioned pool of lava).

 

[Fifth Element]

Here's another question: Is there anyone here who thinks that, if the PCs (in a non-supers game) strip naked and bathe in lava, they should survive the experience unless the players decide otherwise?

I doubt it. But that is such a ridiculous misrepresentation of the argument that it probably doesn't require a response.

 

[Fifth Element]

The death-lite approach assumes that players won't flaunt their plot-protection. They'll keep the player knowledge separate from their character's knowledge. Meaning the player is free to have their character take ridiculously brave actions, like any good action hero (say like John McClane, or Captain Kirk, or Conan), but they'll refrain from immediately and irrevocably suicidal behavior (say like jumping off the top of the Nakamura Tower without a helicopter to grab hold of or an awning to break their fall, trying to breathe hard vacuum, or skinny-dipping in the aforementioned pool of lava).

Yes. This point has been made several times in the thread already. Apparently it bears repeating.

 

[Fifth Element]

Here's another question: if the players ignore all the clues you provide about a SoD effect, why should they even get a save? Just make it like Fighting Fantasy. "If you choose this, turn to 147". 147: "You are dead."

Why not just doD? Because ultimately, it's only the last "d" that actually causes death.