Your character died. Big deal.

[FentonGib]

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?

Hahaha

Yeah that happens a lot in my games... the players often do things like get a dagger and say "I am Conner Macloud of the Clan Macloud... and I am immortal!" and stab themselves with a dagger. They know that they can easily survive 1d4+str mod hp damage even if treated as a coup-de-grace.

I have had players get annoyed when I rule that a (usually daft) action results in their death because common sense would dictate that there's no way to survive.

I recall in one game putting a shotgun into someone's mouth and pulling the trigger and only scratching him... but a shot to the backside killed him...

My players know that I won't kill them off pointlessly and randomly, they they know that if they can run or fight, and choose to fight, that if they die then it's their fault and they have to live with it (pun deliberately intended).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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?

What do you expect for an answer? Well, for the record: No, I am fine with the PCs just dying in there. I might not even care about rolling the 20d6 of damage 3E would suggest. I don't know how Death Flag game would rule such a situation, but maybe the PC would drop unconscious from the gases and heat before he could actually enter the lava.

I am not sure if you fail to see where we agree and where we disagree.

The fundamental problems of "real" save or die effects (like that created by a Bodak or a Medusa, not one created by the fact that the last 2 rounds you took 40 points of damage and have now 5 hit points left and don't try to to heal or run away or do something to avoid the next amout of damage) is that they can be used in an "information vacuum". There are no "safeguards" in the system that ensure that your PC will know of the danger and can protect himself from it. This allows an "abuse" (in the sense of creating unfair or uncontrollable situations for the players) even if is not intended.

No one is advocating that there should be no consequences for bad decisions.
The point is that there can be decisions that are bad without the players having the possibility to see this. If I ignore the hints of a Medusa, well, I shouldn't be surprised that I get turned to stone. But what if the Medusa just didn't leave any such hints? Was I supposed to open every door with my eyes closed? Or should I have known to cast my Augury or Diviniation spell now instead of for the next door? How should I know this? Even if I knew the Medusa is somewhere around, what can I do, especially if my goal is to find her?

Another point is - the consequence of bad decisions doesn't have to be death, and in some games and for some groups death is an uninteresting consequence. If the players make an error, the characters will have to deal with the consequences.

 

[FentonGib]

the consequence of bad decisions doesn't have to be death, and in some games and for some groups death is an uninteresting consequence. If the players make an error, the characters will have to deal with the consequences.

Agree totally. I often do that to my players when they're playing their characters right and/or make a bad (stupid) decision that should get them killed, but I feel is unfair for whatever reason. I'll leave them crippled, half-dead, petrified or something, but have it POSSIBLE to save them - but then the emphasis usually shifts to "WILL the other players bother saving them?"

It's often interesting how often players abandon each other in these situations because irl they're fed up of some of their decisions (e.g. the "not serious player" who keeps getting the whole group into trouble)

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Why not just doD?

I prefer CoD?: Cake or Death? Cake please.

I think 5th has hit upon the really ungratifying part of "Gotcha!" effects. There are too many things that can go wrong and make it not so fun for all involved. You can hand clue after clue to your group and you may think they are the best clues ever given, but your players might not be on the same wavelength that day, miss your clues and dies ignobly. Or like 5th has said, you get the clues and the encounter becomes a non-encounter (oh no! watch out! her snakes might give you a nasty bite!) or if they don't a possible TPK. Swings too far one way or the other. I prefer the way 4E has handled the issue. It creates more tension and gives the party a chance to do something while their comrade slowly turns to stone.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"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.

Not IME, although this may be a difference in our DMing styles. OTOH, I have noticed that some players (including some DMs!) will complain whether they have good reason to or not.

When 3e was being formed, the WotC survey took in the complaints of lots of gamers. And they made changes on the basis of those complaints. There are all kinds of examples, however, where removing the object of the complaint made the game worse, not better. The most obvious, perhaps, is the potential rammifications of casting certain spells.

It seems to me that 4e is an answer to complaints about 3e. Grappling too tough for you? Now you don't have to worry about whether your target is incorporeal or not! Don't like Vancian casting? We can get rid of that by making melee classes more Vancian! Yuck.

Really, if the DM always allows clues to be found about the SoD effect, what's the point?

Already answered, in detail, upthread.

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.

My argument is that bad SoD situations which are not the fault of bad/lazy DMing are largely mythological.

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.

And what if they don't?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

IMHO, swimming in lava is doD.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with including doD situations in a game.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And what if they don't?

Than you have a misunderstanding in your group, and have to deal with it, as usual. If the group failed communication their respective goals or figure out that the communicated goals clash, they have to find a solution that the game system cannot provide them.

What if you play a Call of Cthhulhu game with the intention of running a high mystery horror game, and one player whips out an ex-soldier equipped with an elephant gun and a shotgun and tries to "solve" all problems with firepower?

How long do you try to deal with it "in-game" until you talk with the player that you didn't plan for a high-action/violence game, and discuss how the group deals with that?

 

[Mallus]

And what if they don't?

Then you can't use the death-lite approach with that group.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Than you have a misunderstanding in your group, and have to deal with it, as usual. If the group failed communication their respective goals or figure out that the communicated goals clash, they have to find a solution that the game system cannot provide them.

So, IOW, if a system allows for SoD, one set of play groups will have to have a chat about how to deal with it, and if a system does not allow for SoD, then another set of play groups will have to have a chat about how to deal with it? Because, if this is the case, then I don't see how the game having/not having SoD is, in fact, the problem.

What if you play a Call of Cthhulhu game with the intention of running a high mystery horror game, and one player whips out an ex-soldier equipped with an elephant gun and a shotgun and tries to "solve" all problems with firepower?

How long do you try to deal with it "in-game" until you talk with the player that you didn't plan for a high-action/violence game, and discuss how the group deals with that?

My basic philosophy in running a game is that the GM sets up the initial parameters of the world, and runs the NPCs, but doesn't tell the players how their characters may react to those initial parameters. So, I would never discuss it with the group as a problem per se, but just keep running the world and see what happens.

That is the way, IMHO and IME, the most fun games arise.

(And please note that this is different, IMHO, from bringing a Jedi into the game. I do think that the GM has the right to limit initial player options; this is part of setting the initial parameters of the world. I do not think that the GM should tell the players how their characters react to the world, or how their characters try to solve problems.)

Then you can't use the death-lite approach with that group.

So, basically, if the group understands death-lite you can use it, and if they do not understand death-lite you should not. This is different from SoD how? From where I am sitting, the "problems" are not necessarily caused by SoD (or death-lite) mechanics, but by misuse of those mechanics.


RC


P.S.: Still waiting on those bodak encounter details.

 

[Lacyon]

So, basically, if the group understands death-lite you can use it, and if they do not understand death-lite you should not. This is different from SoD how? From where I am sitting, the "problems" are not necessarily caused by SoD (or death-lite) mechanics, but by misuse of those mechanics.

Well, that and the desire to sell people a system that defaults to something closer to what they want.