Your character died. Big deal.

[Raven Crowking]

But I find it pretty outrageous to assert that it is objectively inferior RPGing.

Not objectively inferior, but objectively less dangerous. And, because it is known to be objectively less dangerous, less easy to suspend disbelief about the dangers involved. Actually, since books and movies were brought up previously, you should be well aware that this same criticism has been levelled against the type of storytelling (and far more than once) in those media where it is obvious that the hero will survive from the first page.

It's as if no one ever actually played a satisfying game of OGL Conan (which has a death-flag mechanic), or HARP (which has a similar Fate Point mechanic), or any of the myriad other games in which PC death is not what is at stake during play.

Sure......But that doesn't alter the fact that a survival-guaranteed game can be played using a survival-not-guaranteed ruleset (generally by RAW), but the reverse is not true.

Moreover, as I said upthread, I have no problem with "different strokes for different folks"....until those folks try to take valuable tools (SoD) out of my game (D&D) because they don't understand how to use them well, or (worse) try to turn my game into something I don't want to play.

Well, there has to be a line somewhere, doesn't there? At some point lowering lethality removes death from the table as a practical matter, even if it doesn't completely do so in theory. So, where does the line fall, and why.

The important line, IMHO, is that death is there in theory. No characters need actually be harmed in the making of this game. However (and it is a big however), my experience with 2e (which actively encouraged DMs to save characters who would otherwise die) is that this causes players to engage less with the gameworld. IME, the percentage to which this is true is 100%, although my sample set is only about 50-75 players in two countries.

Is this different than removing lethality such that the players know it has been done?

IMHO, yes.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC seems to be either denying that non-purist-for-system 1st ed AD&D play is possible, or alternatively denying that it is satisfying.

Oh, and for the record, strenuously defending that purist-for-system 1e AD&D play is both possible and satisfying is not in any way shape or form denying that your non-purist game is impossible, or less satisfying for you.

It is this sort of problem, actually, that made me enter this thread: "I can't use SoD well, therefore it is broken wrongbadfun." When a defense saying, in effect, that it is not broken wrongbadfun becomes "either denying that non-purist-for-system 1st ed AD&D play is possible, or alternatively denying that it is satisfying" there is something wrong.

But, in terms of setting up a role-playing game for general consumption, a survival-not-guaranteed game can be fully satisfying for all involved if the Gm is good at his job. I have experienced this, from both sides of the screen, with hundreds of different players and dozens of different GMs. Conversely, every player in your survival-guaranteed better be top-notch to avoid a "No pull on the Jenga tower" game.


RC

 

[Hussar]

The important line, IMHO, is that death is there in theory. No characters need actually be harmed in the making of this game. However (and it is a big however), my experience with 2e (which actively encouraged DMs to save characters who would otherwise die) is that this causes players to engage less with the gameworld. IME, the percentage to which this is true is 100%, although my sample set is only about 50-75 players in two countries.

On the flip side though, if you burn through five characters in seven sessions, I'm going to guess that the vast majority of players out there won't put quite as much effort into that sixth character.

And, RC, trying to claim any sort of authority here is a bit strange. I've played with over a hundred gamers from four different CONTINENTS, never mind countries. Does that mean my points trump yours?

My big beef with this:

It is this sort of problem, actually, that made me enter this thread: "I can't use SoD well, therefore it is broken wrongbadfun." When a defense saying, in effect, that it is not broken wrongbadfun becomes "either denying that non-purist-for-system 1st ed AD&D play is possible, or alternatively denying that it is satisfying" there is something wrong.

is that it treads dangerously close to Oberoni territory. "The rules aren't bad, you just aren't a good enough DM to use them" is what it sounds like RC is saying. Now I know he wouldn't do that would he?

See, I reject the idea that SoD monsters have to be prescripted so that every SoD monster must be 100% knowable. Even if you KNOW that there is a medusa somewhere in those caves, unless you know exactly where, you can still run into SoD unprepared. And, this also assumes that SoD monsters are mentally handicapped. Medusa are actually human intelligence. How hard would it be for a medusa to think, "Hrm, if I leave statuary all over the place, it's a big freaking hint to my enemies. Maybe I should tidy up." ?

Heck, the module Heroes Tale from 2e features a medusa with grimlock servants. And it specifically calls out that the medusa normally cleans up after herself (only, she didn't this one time because of the situation in the module ) Never mind all the creatures in 2e and earlier that were entirely mundane and had SoD. Snakes were SoD. Does that mean I have to give fair warning for every snake? How is that believable? The whole point of getting bitten by a snake is that you probably tripped on the damn thing.

RC's whole point about knowledge=power fails. If the party does have perfect knowledge, then the SoD creature is a pushover. Yawn, that's an exciting encounter. If the party doesn't have perfect knowledge (which they usually don't), then there is a fairly reasonable chance of getting poked with SoD.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Out of curiosity - and well, there could be another question to follow. . . - how close does 4e come to Save or Die, or for that matter 'Save or Suck', as it's often referred to around here (e.g., paralysis, or other forms of being rendered utterly useless and/or extremely vulnerable) ?

And yes, I have read the core books, but that seems like ages ago now, and well, I haven't looked at them again (partly because I don't own any copies.) So, if someone could remind me, or fill in some details that mightn't have made much impression at the time, that'd be great.

 

[Hussar]

Out of curiosity - and well, there could be another question to follow. . . - how close does 4e come to Save or Die, or for that matter 'Save or Suck', as it's often referred to around here (e.g., paralysis, or other forms of being rendered utterly useless and/or extremely vulnerable) ?

And yes, I have read the core books, but that seems like ages ago now, and well, I haven't looked at them again (partly because I don't own any copies.) So, if someone could remind me, or fill in some details that mightn't have made much impression at the time, that'd be great.

As I recall, and others probably know better than me, SoD does exist in 4e. Typically you get about three saves before you die however.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Out of curiosity - and well, there could be another question to follow. . . - how close does 4e come to Save or Die, or for that matter 'Save or Suck', as it's often referred to around here (e.g., paralysis, or other forms of being rendered utterly useless and/or extremely vulnerable) ?

And yes, I have read the core books, but that seems like ages ago now, and well, I haven't looked at them again (partly because I don't own any copies.) So, if someone could remind me, or fill in some details that mightn't have made much impression at the time, that'd be great.

There are a few Save or Stun effects - but stuns don't last long (one round or save ends). The Medusa turns you to stone if you your second save against the power. (First you're slowed, then immobilized, then petrified.)

Bodaks might be closer to "real" Save or Die.
SLam attack weakens you, and once per encounter it can use its Death Gaze power to drop you to 0 hit points if you're weakened. If you#re not weakend, you "just" lose a healing surge and take some damage.

Sleep on the players side is the closest to Save or Die - you're always slowed, and if you fail your first save, you drop unconcious (but save each round to go up again.)

 

[Delta]

I see several drawbacks. For example - in which story of the Medusa does a hero survive her look without a counter-measure handy?
Oh, damn, there is the story word again...

It's almost as if this wasn't dealt with in the 1E DMG now 30 years ago:

Someone once sharply criticized the concept of the saving throw as ridiculous. Could a man chained to a rock, they asked, save himself from the blast of a red dragon's breath? Why not?, I replied. If you accept firebreathing dragons, why doubt the chance to reduce the damage sustained from such a creature's attack? Imagine that the figure, at the last moment, of course, manages to drop beneath the licking flames, or finds a crevice in which to shield his or her body, or succeeds in finding a way to be free of the fetters. Why not? The mechanics of combat or the details of the injury caused by some horrible weapon are not the key to heroic fantasy and adventure games. It is the character, how he or she becomes involved in the combat, how he or she somehow escapes ~ or fails to escape- the mortal threat which is important to the enjoyment and longevity of the game...

So a character manages to avoid the full blast of the fireball, or averts his or her gaze from the basilisk or medusa, or the poisonous stinger of the giant scorpion misses or fails somehow to inject its venom. Whatever the rationale, the character is saved to go on. Of course, some saves result in the death of the character anyway, as partial damage causes him or her to meet death. But at least the character had some hope, and he or she fought until the very end. Stories will be told of it at the inn, and songs sung of the battle when warriors gather around the campfire. Almost, almost he managed to reach the bend in the passage where the fell breath of the blue dragon Razisiz could not reach, but at the last moment his toe struck a protrusion, and as he stumbled the dragon slew him!​

 

[Aus_Snow]

Hm. OK, well, for these closest things in 4e [to SoD/SoS] - I wonder if it is generally considered better or worse (by players) that if or when it comes to such things, the DM is making the roll that determines the PC's fate.*

That was the supplementary question, of course. Put another way, for 'real' SoD in any other edition, I wonder if it was in fact an attack roll vs. one of the PC's Defences (assuming for a second such things existed), rather than a Saving Throw against one of the [presumably] DM-controlled enemies' attack values, would player attitudes be any different toward the game feature in question. In general, that is.


* Though, if it can never be simply 'one roll, you die', I guess this mightn't matter so much, to many. But I am, as ever, still curious.

 

[Glyfair]

Hm. OK, well, for these closest things in 4e [to SoD/SoS] - I wonder if it is generally considered better or worse (by players) that if or when it comes to such things, the DM is making the roll that determines the PC's fate.*

The DM makes the first roll, but the saving throws that you have to fail for the full effect are the players. Not too far from a lot of earlier D&D editions where there was an initial attack roll and then a saving throw (for example, a lot of poisoned attacks).

 

[Aus_Snow]

The DM makes the first roll, but the saving throws that you have to fail for the full effect are the players. Not too far from a lot of earlier D&D editions where there was an initial attack roll and then a saving throw (for example, a lot of poisoned attacks).

Oh.

As I said, it's been a while, and I only read through them once. I got the impression somehow - or misremembered, anyhow - that saving throws were gone, static defences being the replacement. Gah.

Oh well, hypothetically then (and, it seems, totally irrelevantly!) - I wonder if it was the DM's roll, whether more players would see this as a good or bad thing. Or neither, perhaps.