# Save or Die: Yea or Nay?



## JoeGKushner (Aug 7, 2010)

So I'm seeing a thread where a few GMs are like, "Save or Die and other effects like level drain are essential to spread fear into the player base!"

And I'm curious if the old informal poll backs those numbers.


----------



## Ranes (Aug 7, 2010)

I haven't voted, because there isn't an option for me. As a DM and a player, I want save or die.

As a player, I don't feel bad when one of my characters dies. As a DM, I see plenty of ways of bringing a character back, if the players really want that to happen. A bit of downtime in the game while you wait for a character to be brought back from the dead or for the opportunity to introduce a new one? Oh, the humanity!


----------



## jonesy (Aug 7, 2010)

I DM and I play, so that probably should be a multiple choice poll.

Doesn't really matter though 'cause my answer is: it depends on the situation. Horror scenarios for example do need some really nasty monsters.


----------



## Festivus (Aug 7, 2010)

I really dislike save or die.  There is zero tension in it.  What I prefer is what I saw in the 4E Tomb of Horrors RPGA mod, where the death is slow and difficult to overcome... there is drama in that death.  Finger of Death... yep, sucks.  Petrify (happened to my character in a pathfinder game)... sucked.  I had nothing to do for the rest of the night but roll up a new character.  It's one the things that keeps me away from 3.x games.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 7, 2010)

Both as a GM and a player:  It isn't a single-answer thing.  The two choices bring different flavors and dynamics, and I don't necessarily always want the same dynamic in every game.  Sometimes, you want save or die, sometimes you don't.


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Aug 7, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Both as a GM and a player:  It isn't a single-answer thing.  The two choices bring different flavors and dynamics, and I don't necessarily always want the same dynamic in every game.  Sometimes, you want save or die, sometimes you don't.




This is more or less my position, but I voted "yes" because if they are there, I can choose to use them or ban them. Hombrew them from 0 is more difficult.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 7, 2010)

Festivus said:


> I really dislike save or die.  There is zero tension in it.  What I prefer is what I saw in the 4E Tomb of Horrors RPGA mod, where the death is slow and difficult to overcome... there is drama in that death.  Finger of Death... yep, sucks.  Petrify (happened to my character in a pathfinder game)... sucked.  I had nothing to do for the rest of the night but roll up a new character.  It's one the things that keeps me away from 3.x games.



I agree. I much prefer the 4E medusa, for example, where you're first slowed, then immobilized, then petrified as you fail saves. That builds up tension, and does a good job of modeling being gradually overcome by the effect.

As I understand it, Pathfinder made save-or-suck effects akin to hold person, where the victim gets a save every round. That's also a decided improvement; one failed save doesn't keep you out of the encounter entirely.


----------



## messy (Aug 7, 2010)

nay, nay, a thousand times nay!


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 7, 2010)

Yes, but with a caveat: there has to be some way for the players and DM (for his monsters, especially bosses) to mitigate the danger.

A "coin-flip" scenario is definitely not fun.

The threat of save-or-die is important and needs to be preserved.  But if the only "resource" a SoD effect drains is life or death, then the tension is lost because the player feels hopeless if there is only a small chance of survival and the DM gets frustrated if his boss dies with a single bad roll.

But if there is another resource that can be managed, oh, I don't know, say ACTION POINTS , then SoD effects become a way for the DM to put pressure on the players by forcing them to spend their APs.  And as their APs get low, then the tension and threat of death goes up.

It's a win-win.  I love APs as a resource.


----------



## jaerdaph (Aug 7, 2010)

*If you fall in lava, you die (no save). *

This is an immutable law.


----------



## A Passing Maniac (Aug 7, 2010)

Definite no. Sitting around doing nothing while you wait for your character to be not-useless, or wait for your new character to be created and introduced, isn't fun. (Even worse if you actually liked your character.) YMMV, of course, but my players and I find that save or die/suck effects don't instill fear or build tension or create excitement so much as cause annoyance and boredom. Generally speaking, not a goal of my D&D games.


----------



## TheNovaLord (Aug 7, 2010)

i think yes

most rpgs these days are too soft on us!!

grander way to die than falling unconcious and bleeding out!!


----------



## JeffB (Aug 7, 2010)

DM only here,  I like the option of both. BUT- like it much less than I used to- simply because character creation is such a chore these days- I get sick of players whining about having to roll up a new character  Much less of an issue in pre- 3E versions of the game.

As someone mentioned regarding the Medusa, I do prefer the way 4E handles former "save or" effects:  increasingly bad stuff happens for a few rounds and then you are toast.


----------



## radmod (Aug 7, 2010)

As primarily a DM, but sometimes a player or GM, I am not terribly fond of save or die. That is, the save or die outright stuff, since a fireball could potentially be save or die.

I've always thought that the advantage that D&D had over other game systems (like GURPs) is that, generally, it took a while for a character to die, without usually having to worry about instant death stuff (like a lucky/unlucky roll). Likewise, the game tends to be more fun for everyone at the mid levels where you don't usually come across things like _slay living_, _disintegrate_, or the _power _words. As a player, though, I have to admit, it's pretty cool to blow the crap out of things at high levels with a single shot.


----------



## BlubSeabass (Aug 7, 2010)

The life of an adventurer is a dangerous one. Although I think SoD spells should be used like tonberries. The fear of it being there is what makes it so terrifying. If the PC's don't act smart enough to neutralize the threat, their fear should be justified. Nobody mentions it here, but I think making such a save is incredibly fun. "...I SURVIVED! WOOOOH!"


----------



## Technomancer (Aug 7, 2010)

Yes.  If you have to save or die, it means you have done something stupid that you deserve to die for.  The chance to save is actually quite generous in allowing you to avoid that fate.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Aug 7, 2010)

I don't like save or dies as a DM and ESPECIALLY as a player.  I don't really want them removed entirely either, though.  If used extremely sparingly by players I don't mind as a DM.  If it has conditions attached, I don't necessarily mind as a player or DM.  Like, if you couldn't use them until an enemy was left with half or less health (bloodied, in 4E) or whatever.  Power Word Kill is even more extreme, with a limit of 60 hp or less (far lower than half for most level 17+ characters) and a 9th level slot for the benefit of not even giving a save.  I never minded that spell much.  Also, if you had some sort of mechanism where you had a "delay time" before you could use SoD in an encounter, a certain number of rounds or whatever, that might make it less unappealing.  But that'd also be hard to do without it becoming too gamist for my liking.



Technomancer said:


> Yes.  If you have to save or die, it means you have done something stupid that you deserve to die for.  The chance to save is actually quite generous in allowing you to avoid that fate.




What rules system do you play?!


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Aug 7, 2010)

I haven't voted.

I'm a dm and a player.


As both I want very restricted options for save or die. I don't want to see it as a monster ability (except perhaps for unique monsters like the Tarrasque). 

I would only want to see it in extreme risk situations where players would/should actually die automatically. For instance, falling into magma or off a dragon in the stratosphere.

It should be used as "you should die automatically anyway, but since SOME rare people survive this, you get a save" ....not "you fight a guy using poison and he stabs you ....suck it up".

Course, I'm also of the camp that believes ressurection magic should be harder/more limited. I like the idea of less random death and less easy rezzes. 

However, I don't want the game "easier". I want death equally possible, just less random.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 7, 2010)

There's a place for Save or Die, one largely dependent on the game being run.  I don't use them all the time, and honestly prefer if there's a way to mitigate them (action points, death flag, death throes or retaliation, etc).

But if characters really should know better, or are intentionally going against impossible odds?  No mercy.  And frankly, sometimes SoDs are simply appropriate.  If you're facing Death himself, and he death-zaps you... well, you had better save.  Or else die.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 7, 2010)

There are advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side they are very dramatic and exciting. The downside is that a high degree of PC turnover is disruptive to a campaign. In a long term campaign, I'd say a PC death is mostly a negative thing. When PCs are highly detailed, both mechanically and in terms of personality and backstory, then it takes a long time to make a new one.

Save-or-die works, but only for a certain type of game - roleplay lite, story lite, quick generated PCs, each player has a large stable of PCs.


----------



## the Jester (Aug 7, 2010)

This question is not all that cut and dried.

YES there should be some instances of "save or die" (or even "do something stupid and die, no save"), but NO it shouldn't be as common as everyone's favorite 4th level spell.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 7, 2010)

I'm a DM, and I voted Nay.

I don't believe that in order to have the threat of death, one has to actually have real, commonly occuring, character death.

Making tools or mechanics available for players to avoid death, does not negate the threat.  The _"Oh, Crap"_ moments are still there.   The tension isn't in the dying, it's in the threat of dying.  The chance of death has not disappeared, it's just that now the players have tools to deal with the situations...though still not always.  I want to take characters right to the edge of failure, and then let them pull off their Heroic escape.  That edge is where the tension is.  I don't want death to be common...I want death to be the exception.  And because of it's exceptional status, be much more impactful.

For me, it's kind of like the death of Chewbacca.  In peril after peril, the characters of Star Wars avoid death at almost every turn.  The sheer number of times where death is a distinct possibility, and they squeak by again, defy the odds.  But that's what Heroes are supposed to do.  Because of this, when Chewbacca dies the impact is immense.  And the manner of his death is so incredibly Heroic.  That's the kind of death I want for characters.  In my opinion, Save-or-Die effects make character death common and mundane...and most definitely un-Heroic.


----------



## Starman (Aug 7, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> *If you fall in lava, you die (no save). *
> 
> This is an immutable law.




I first read that as "If you fall in _love_, you die (no save)" which seemed like a rather harsh, cruel world you had going there.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 7, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> *If you fall in lava, you die (no save). *
> 
> This is an immutable law.




Absolutely!

Which is why I so appreciate mechanics like Action Points...so that characters can avoid falling into the lava in the first place...yet the _threat_ still exists.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Aug 7, 2010)

Like others who've posted, I didn't vote because I am both a player and a dm.  I want save or dies in any game I play in, whether as player or dm.  But they should be rare.  At some point the paradigm shifted.  Getting a save is now deemed necessary.  Back in the day, a save was a gift from the gods and you were glad to have it.  It meant you'd already f'd up , but the gods smiled on you and gave you a chance to survive.  Now there are saves for stubbing your toe.  What's next?  Rubber walled dungeons?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Aug 7, 2010)

jonesy said:


> I DM and I play, so that probably should be a multiple choice poll.
> 
> Doesn't really matter though 'cause my answer is: it depends on the situation. Horror scenarios for example do need some really nasty monsters.



Same here. Situation is key.

So neither Yay nor Nay, but May. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Gansk (Aug 7, 2010)

The only way to put the fear of death/drain into players is to make sure the players/PC's know the monster is capable of inflicting the effect on them. There are so many monster and spell books out now that a player probably doesn't know what's going to hit him - he's asked to make a save and within seconds he dead. Where is the tension there?

Back in the old days, when a wight was standing in front of your PC, you were scared. Why? Because you knew one hit from it was going to inflict a lot more damage than a whole gang of orcs. Same with a medusa, basilisk, dragon, banshee, bodak, etc. If you didn't the recognize the monster and/or your character wasn't aware of its attacks, then there is nothing climatic about dying due to one failed roll.

So the DM's who thrive on keeping the players guessing by using every monster in their RPG library can't have it both ways - they can't say that players need to learn to run sometimes if one or two PC's are dead after the first round. Sure they run in that case, but did the players enjoy the experience? What lesson did they learn? 

As a DM I don't have a problem having an encounter that has the potential to kill a PC, but I have to make sure there are enough clues dropped around that indicate how dangerous the monster will be if the PC's choose to fight it. If the PC's choose to go forward, then the fear and tension are real and surviving the encounter is a reward in itself.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 7, 2010)

FFZ has an interesting solution, I think.

Instant Death (or petrification or whatnot) is entirely possible, and it's likely that one or two party members will have access to this ability (sometimes it deals damage even if it doesn't hit, somtimes, it just doesn't).

However, it's also very easy to undo, in many cases, easier to undo than it is to do in the first place. Items that undo statuses are not expensive. Being KO'd (at 0 hp, which is different than dead) is something easily remedied. 

FFZ also has a clear "normal -> Elite -> Boss" monster hierarchy, and only normal monsters (the majority of mosnters) can be affected by such attacks. And in these situations, while a particular job might not be able to use a given highest-level power against the boss, they do have other alternatives. 

Still, a high-level party of a Black Mage, a Dark Knight, and  a Samurai will be cutting normal monsters down like wheat before the thresher, simply by choosing to do so. That's fairly intentional. It helps the high-level characters feel like a badass.

Monsters, of course, gain access to similar abilities, which can make them dangerous, but, again, fixing it is as simple as asking your buddy to not wail on the monsters this turn, but instead revive you. That plays into the Aggressive/Defensive pace of FFZ combat strategies: you need to employ healing and defensive abilities in order to not die, but every additional round adds to the attrition you're facing.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 7, 2010)

As both player and DM, I have no problem with things like save/die, level drain, equipment loss, and so forth.  Adventuring is risky business.

But the risk also has to, in the end, carry at least a potential reward. 

Lanefan


----------



## S'mon (Aug 7, 2010)

I'm fine for it as a high level spell, not so keen on it for a low level monster bite.  I use an optional rule from (I think) Mentzer Basic where most poison does damage, not auto-death.


----------



## Agamon (Aug 7, 2010)

I'm also okay with at high level, as I have resolved never to play high level again! 

Edit: Honestly though, it really depends on the kind of game you play.  I can certainly see where save or die would be not just welcome, but awesome.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 7, 2010)

Technomancer said:


> Yes.  If you have to save or die, it means you have done something stupid that you deserve to die for.  The chance to save is actually quite generous in allowing you to avoid that fate.




I don't recall that being quite true in early versions of D&D. The designers were poison crazy and almost all of those were save vs poison or die type things.


----------



## Oryan77 (Aug 7, 2010)

Festivus said:


> Petrify (happened to my character in a pathfinder game)... sucked.




I was going to post a comment and luckily an example was already given for me. 

I've noticed players tend to lump any disaster that causes their PC to be out of the game for a bit as a Save or Die effect. 

I don't really consider effects like Petrification to be a save or die effect. I had a player question me about that before because we have a gentleman's agreement at our table that if the players don't use save or die effects, my NPCs won't use them either. This player said, "A Basilisk?!? I thought you said no "save or die" attacks?"

My answer to the poll is in regards to anything that will flat out kill a character with a single roll even if you're at full health. Petrification is not a killer effect even though it can take the character out of the game. You can be rescued and not lose a level. It's also not _that_ hard to be rescued from something like petrification as it would be from dying and being brought back from the dead. I see that as more of a "save or be inconvenienced" effect than a "save or die".


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 7, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> FFZ also has a clear "normal -> Elite -> Boss" monster hierarchy, and only normal monsters (the majority of mosnters) can be affected by such attacks.




Generally, I'm not really a fan of giving a monster blanket immunities just because it's "elite" or a "boss".  Just seems lazy to me and frustrating to the players.  I don't like telling a player "because I said so" if they try something and it doesn't work.

The most frustrating thing for a DM is creating an important monster or NPC (especially if it will encounter the party by itself) and having the battle end quickly because of a bad roll.  You can fudge the roll but how many times do you fudge it?  If you keep fudging rolls, you might as well give it blanket immunities.

This is another reason why I like Action Points, especially for monsters.  As a DM, I can now spend an AP to boost or reroll a save.  Voila.  Instant survivability.

Trailblazer provides a very simple method for creating Solo creatures: multiple its hit points but the number of PCs and give it one AP per PC.  Instant epic fight.

But even more importantly, it now provides another resource that the players need to "whittle down" before defeating the monster.  Providing a counter for the wizard's SoD spells doesn't lessen the effectiveness of those spells.  In fact, they are a great way to force the DM to spend his APs.


----------



## radmod (Aug 7, 2010)

Oryan77 said:


> My answer to the poll is in regards to anything that will flat out kill a character with a single roll even if you're at full health.




That's as succinct a definition as any. That's what I thought we were talking about: make a save or your dead stuff. Not situations, which are entirely different. Nor basic spells.
I would also include the power words, which often result in death (if not outright) and have no save.

To the guy who was saying you only face save or die if you're stupid.
I'm not trying to be snarky, but the idea that you only face save or die if you're stupid? Seriously? You've never done anything wrong but still had to face a save or die? Or the only time you did was when you played stupid?


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 7, 2010)

Festivus said:


> Petrify (happened to my character in a pathfinder game)... sucked.  I had nothing to do for the rest of the night but roll up a new character.  It's one the things that keeps me away from 3.x games.




Wouldn't it have been nice if you had some Action Points to spend that would allow you to boost your initial save, reroll the save, or get a new save in a later round?

Save-or-Die/Save-or-Suck is not an in-game problem, it's a "fun" problem.  Being removed from the game for the rest of the session is no fun for anyone.  

Why end someone's fun for the night just because of a bad roll?


----------



## Umbran (Aug 7, 2010)

Technomancer said:


> Yes.  If you have to save or die, it means you have done something stupid that you deserve to die for.




For varying definitions of "stupid", perhaps.   I mean, walking into a dungeon isn't exactly an activity you expect to increase your expected lifespan, so perhaps you can call adventuring at all "stupid".

But, once you accept that the characters are going into a dungeon (or whatever other adventuring-scenario) with anything less than an army and a corps of engineers as non-stupid, then I don't think your statement is true. Doubly so if you're not the sort that allows players to use knowledge of monsters and characters that the PCs would not have.

Poison traps and spellcasters and monsters you've never heard of can get the drop on you.  In classic modules they were _specifically designed_ to get the drop on you.  Then, save or die isn't a matter of stupid.

I can buy your argument when the PCs have information, and don't use it wisely.  But it doesn't hold for cases where they cannot be reasonably expected to avoid the incident.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 7, 2010)

Oryan77 said:


> Petrification is not a killer effect even though it can take the character out of the game. You can be rescued and not lose a level.




It looks, quacks, and walks like a duck:

You can't take action until someone (who survives the encounter) hauls your carcass (which is now brittle, and probably weighs a significant fraction of a ton) out of the situation and back to town to get a spell cast?  The only practical difference between being turned to stone and being dead is how pliable your flesh is!  Sounds like death to me.


----------



## parvatiquinta (Aug 7, 2010)

As a DM I put a lot of emphasis on character background and development. I don't entirely despise the random factor, but I'd rather it didn't impact the game very deeply, or at least not as immediately as only requiring a single die roll.

I also dislike resurrection-like tricks to the point of not allowing them in many of my settings. So removing save or die is only fair.


----------



## malraux (Aug 7, 2010)

Umbran said:


> It looks, quacks, and walks like a duck:
> 
> You can't take action until someone (who survives the encounter) hauls your carcass (which is now brittle, and probably weighs a significant fraction of a ton) out of the situation and back to town to get a spell cast?  The only practical difference between being turned to stone and being dead is how pliable your flesh is!  Sounds like death to me.




Gotta agree with that.  And of course, Stone to Flesh forces a true save or die, though there's still Break Enchantment.

Personally, Save or Die effects in the 3e mold are on my game no-no list.  Its the kind of thing where I'll walk out of the game and just not come back.  They don't inspire fear in me, just absolute unfun.  I've had too many situations of showing up then sitting out for the rest of the night having rolled a single die to fail a saving throw.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 7, 2010)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Generally, I'm not really a fan of giving a monster blanket immunities just because it's "elite" or a "boss". Just seems lazy to me and frustrating to the players. I don't like telling a player "because I said so" if they try something and it doesn't work.




The question that you should ask yourself isn't "Why can't my Death spell work?" it is "Why is this monster or NPC an elite or a boss?" Elites and bosses are unique creatures in the game-world, legendary beings of power beyond that which mortals can gather. They are legendary and mighty, unique, with unique powers and qualities. Do you expect to be able to slay Achilles or Odysseus with the same ease that you can slaughter most of the unnamed Achaen masses? Do you think that Merlin should be as easy to kill as any minor hedge mage? The corpses of orcs may lay at your feet, but that doesn't mean that you can execute the Great Red Wyrm Thardintazl with the same ease. 

Why should all monsters be equal? Certainly, that Thardintazl can slaughter entire villages of dirt farmers, but she probably can't oppose four stout heroes. 

FFZ also has two specific things which reinforce this reasoning. The first is that it is explicitly narrative, so if it makes the story better to keep these creatures alive, they should stay alive, and that should be explained somehow. The second is that it's very in-genre. The FF games are filled with examples of "can't kill it in one hit, sorry!" I believe they do this for the same narrative reason: makes a bad story.  

I originally shied away from putting those in, but genre brought be back, and story gave me a reason to keep them, and the logic of "heroic monsters vs. standard monsters" helped me wrap my mind around it so well, that I even would employ it in D&D. If a PC fighter is distinctly different from a random dirt farmer, I don't see why the Great Red Wyrm can't be distinctly different from a random orc.



> The most frustrating thing for a DM is creating an important monster or NPC (especially if it will encounter the party by itself) and having the battle end quickly because of a bad roll. You can fudge the roll but how many times do you fudge it? If you keep fudging rolls, you might as well give it blanket immunities.




If a monster or NPC is important, it should be important because it's somehow narratively significant. It has done things that other adversaries of the PC's don't or can't do. Whatever that significance is, can also grant it all sorts of abilities to resist a quick slaughter.



> This is another reason why I like Action Points, especially for monsters. As a DM, I can now spend an AP to boost or reroll a save. Voila. Instant survivability.
> 
> Trailblazer provides a very simple method for creating Solo creatures: multiple its hit points but the number of PCs and give it one AP per PC. Instant epic fight.
> 
> But even more importantly, it now provides another resource that the players need to "whittle down" before defeating the monster. Providing a counter for the wizard's SoD spells doesn't lessen the effectiveness of those spells. In fact, they are a great way to force the DM to spend his APs.




The same logic that gives those creatures boatloads of HP and APs is the same logic that can simply give them immunity. 

Though I like the AP solution, too.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 7, 2010)

Umbran said:


> For varying definitions of "stupid", perhaps.   I mean, walking into a dungeon isn't exactly an activity you expect to increase your expected lifespan, so perhaps you can call adventuring at all "stupid".
> 
> But, once you accept that the characters are going into a dungeon (or whatever other adventuring-scenario) with anything less than an army and a corps of engineers as non-stupid, then I don't think your statement is true. Doubly so if you're not the sort that allows players to use knowledge of monsters and characters that the PCs would not have.
> 
> ...




While I wouldn't necessarily use the term "stupid", I do kind of agree with Technomancer's general point. Going into the dungeon *is* dangerous, and the players and PCs know it. More to the point, if the campaign is "typical D&D", there's a known risk of the presence of save or die effects: poisoned needs in door locks, giant falling blocks from the ceiling, basilisks and medusae (I think these count as save or die). Therefore, it is incumbent upon the players/PCs to work to avoid making those saves in the first place (by being careful, etc...)

BUT, the farther one moves away from that sort of old school, base line D&D presumption -- tomb raiders looking for fortune and glory in chaos infused labyrinths -- the less one can put the onus on the players/PCs for getting themselves into trouble. If the GM believes in the value added by using opponents with save or die (or energy drain) type effects, but also wants a campaign that is non standard, then it is the GM's job to make sure the players/PCs enderstand the threat exists.

I have two examples of failures on my part, as a DM that likes save or die, in imparting save or die effects in play. I learned a lot from these situation and maybe others can too without going through the consequences I had to go through (one of the following ended a campaign and my GMing for the group outright and the other almost did so).

1) I sometimes like "outsized" enemies in adventures to remind the players that the world is not appropriately challenged. I.e. just because you are 1st level doesn't mean the CR 20 baddies don't exist. In playing the 3E Dragonlance modules, I decided to use the MMII (I think) Banshee instead of the CR 7-ish groaing spirit in the Xak Tsaroth dungeon -- again, just to remind the players the world is full of powerful evils. I made sure to give the PCs a couple of rounds to run once the encounter started. they didn't run, even after the first PC died outright. They had it in their heads that any challenge in front of them was beatable, and a TPK ensued. My fault, entirely. It was a poor decision to put the banshee in front of them in the first place, and a worse decision to not tell them straight out that they could not win the fight.

2) In a different campaign, I had the PCs enter a small town where there were rumors of an evil sleeping in the old town well. To make a long story short, I tried to transfer information to the players all "in character" regarding the threat posed to them. At the time, for whatever reason, I felt that I had done my job correctly and if they didn't take it seriously, it was their heads. And they didn't, and so it was, and it turned into a giant mess. (Those of you that also frequent rpg.net may recall the Great Ninja Bodak thread.) I failed here by not confirming that the players knew they were in real trouble, and by punishing them for my inability to give clear clues.

So, my point: save or die is good, and it can improves games, but it hands a great deal of power to the DM and therefore requires a great deal of care in its use. If you're running an old school dungeon crawl in a standard D&D universe with experienced players, I say let the encounter charts rule and the saves fall where they may. But if your doing something else, take care in how you include and apply these kinds of opponents and affects in the game.


----------



## Oryan77 (Aug 7, 2010)

Umbran said:


> It looks, quacks, and walks like a duck:



 But unless it's really a duck, then it's still not a duck. It doesn't matter if someone else calls it a duck, it doesn't make it a duck.

When you use a Stone to Flesh spell, you don't lose a level once you are no longer petrified. Your hitpoints never went -10, you didn't die by massive damage, your ability scores never reached 0, and spells like raise dead or resurrection have no effect on you. Also, your soul doesn't end up on any particular plane when petrified, and you also don't look like a duck (unless you're Howard).

If you want to call it a save or die effect, that's your choice. But it doesn't make it so. If your adventuring party can't figure out that rather than hauling your heavy butt back to town, it might be easier to leave you there, go to town & buy a scroll, and then come back and fix you; that's their fault. Maybe your adventuring group is a save-or-die effect, not the petrifying spell. 

It might be a hassle & take you out of the game, but I'd rather be petrified than outright killed.



malraux said:


> And of course, Stone to Flesh forces a true save or die, though there's still Break Enchantment.



 But that doesn't make the petrification a save-or-die. It makes it a save-save-or-die, and that isn't what we're talking about.


----------



## malraux (Aug 7, 2010)

Oryan77 said:


> snip




But it shares almost all the qualities of what makes Save or Die such an unpopular option.  You have to sit out of the game for a long period of time, the flow of the game itself is broken because priority one is getting the party back to town, etc.  The only difference is the lost level.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 7, 2010)

As I expected:

I am a DM is the clear favourite here


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 8, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Elites and bosses are unique creatures in the game-world, legendary beings of power beyond that which mortals can gather. They are legendary and mighty, unique, with unique powers and qualities. Do you expect to be able to slay Achilles or Odysseus with the same ease that you can slaughter most of the unnamed Achaen masses? Do you think that Merlin should be as easy to kill as any minor hedge mage? The corpses of orcs may lay at your feet, but that doesn't mean that you can execute the Great Red Wyrm Thardintazl with the same ease.




This is all well and good but you are basically entering tarrasque territory.  That's fine but for the campaigns I like to run, this type of creature design should be reserved for the ultimate BBEG of the campaign and not the norm.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 8, 2010)

The only meaning I can find in this poll is this, and something we already knew: on ENWorld, the DMs outnumber the players by a huge margin.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 8, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> The only meaning I can find in this poll is this, and something we already knew: on ENWorld, the DMs outnumber the players by a huge margin.




It's kind of a loaded comparison, though. I play *and* I DM. But I only had the choice to answer as a DM or a player. Since I DM more often than I play, I answered as a DM, particularly since that's the context I'm in when dealing with most save or die (or sit) effects.


----------



## Oryan77 (Aug 8, 2010)

malraux said:


> But it shares almost all the qualities of what makes Save or Die such an unpopular option.  You have to sit out of the game for a long period of time, the flow of the game itself is broken because priority one is getting the party back to town, etc.  The only difference is the lost level.




Yeah, and that does suck when it happens. But this is two separate issues we're talking about. 

Assuming that in both cases, the PC is able to get help. One is a permanent penalty to your PC (lost level) along with the fact that you have to sit out of the action for a bit. The other holds no penalty, but you still have to sit out of the action for a bit. I don't find being inconvenienced to be the same thing as save-or-die. I would much rather sit on the sidelines for a bit than die and lose a level.

Also, sitting out of the game is only an issue to a certain type of player. I personally don't mind if I am temporarily out of the action. The game is still entertaining to me, sort of like watching a movie and waiting to see what happens next. But then a lot of players seem to be high maintenance and get bent out of shape if they have to be a cheerleader for a portion of a game every so often. But this still does not mean that it's the same thing as a save-or-die effect. They are both annoying, but it's just not the same thing.

If the game gets to the point where I even have to make sure I'm not even annoying players with save-or-be-a-cheerleader-for-30-minutes effects, then I'd rather play with some more easy going players that can deal with _some_ kind of upsetting effect without acting like a diva.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 8, 2010)

You know, I would have voted "No save-or-die" as both player and DM . . . because I am both right now in two different campaigns.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 8, 2010)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> This is all well and good but you are basically entering tarrasque territory. That's fine but for the campaigns I like to run, this type of creature design should be reserved for the ultimate BBEG of the campaign and not the norm.




Well, it's not the norm in FFZ's default set-up, either. There's more than one dude out there like that, but it's not common (per level: 1 boss, 1-5 elites depending, and about 40-50 "normal monsters" means that there's almost a 10:1  relationship). Essentially, the BBEG of each adventure (and maybe a henchman or two) is in that class. Most of the 50+ monsters a PC fights in a given level are not elites or bosses.

It's not really much different from a 4e world where certain dragons and fiends and gods and such are solos. 

It's just that, to solve the anticlimax problem, 4e says "we remove Save or Die effects, so no one can kill anyone outright," and FFZ says "Sure, you can kill a goblin outright, just don't expect that to also work when you're fighting the Terrasque -- they're entirely different classes of monsters, as different from each other as your Dark Knight is from some dirt farmer." FFZ's position is a little more nuanced, because it values what Save or Die brings to the table, but 4e's solution is certainly simpler.


----------



## Verdande (Aug 8, 2010)

Lemme give a quick bit of fact:

If you're rolling a save or die, that's a generosity on the part of the DM. You're lucky to even get a _chance_ to live, that's how bad you messed up. You should be dead, but maybe luck will give you a bit of leeway.

Examples:
If you're fighting a Medusa straight on, and it looks at you, you effed up and get to die.
If you're charging across an open field and a death god's priest casts Distintegrate on you, you messed up and deserve to die.
If you kick down a door, and poison gas starts to flood the room, you messed up (again!) and should probably die.

Those DMs who are against save or die: If a player jumps into a volcano, do you let him live? 
If so, do you let him live if he jumps into the gullet of a dragon?
If so, do you let him live if he gets stomped by a dragon?


----------



## Roadkill101 (Aug 8, 2010)

I think the poll needed a "sometimes" type of response.
As a GM and Player, I don't like save or die effects.  With exception to an effect where chances of encountering such tend to be a rarity.
I prefer the following saving throw types.
Save to end some disadvantageous effect.
Save to avoid some effect (typically for something with an overall weak effect to begin).
Save to reduce some effect (such as taking only 1/2 damage from a fireball upon a succesful save).


----------



## Dykstrav (Aug 8, 2010)

I'm of mixed attitudes regarding "save-or-die" effects.

As a DM, I'm sort of lukewarm about them. Using a save-or-die monster like a medusa doesn't necessarily indicate that you're a bad DM--adventuring is a dangerous business. If any farmboy that grabs a longsword and a suit of armor can shrug off the petrifying gaze of a medusa, I think that reduces the coolness factor of the PCs. If the player characters are never in incredible danger, their exploits are correspondingly less exceptional. It's sort of like Achilles addressing the messenger boy in the opening scenes of the 2004 movie _Troy_... The boy says, "I wouldn't want to fight him," to which Achilles replies, "That's why no one will remember your name." As both a player and a DM, anything that ratchets up the tension of the game is usually a good thing.

I don't think that how 4E handles the issue by requiring multiple checks over successive rounds is necessarily any better than how previous editions handled it. I haven't heard a player claim that they've had more fun when their character dies from failing three checks instead of dying from failing one check.

As a player, I feel that most save-or-die effects are insanely useful. Even at low levels, spells such as _sleep_ and _color spray_ can turn the tide of a battle. _Disintegrate_ can be extremely handy, many players forget that you can _disintegrate_ matter as well as monsters. Are you facing a 54-HD iron golem marching across a bridge? Not if you have _disintegrate_--all the spell resistance and/or damage reduction in the world doesn't help you if the bridge beneath your feet disappears and you have no means of flying.

All that being said, I have my own theories as to why some players despise save-or-die effects. 

I've noticed that players high-five each other and cheer when they drop a high-CR monster with a _disintegrate_ or _finger of death_, but act like the DM is lacking in skill or is deliberately being a jerk when monsters use save-or-dies. Some players only like something when it benefits their character, and protest loudly and vehemently when bad things happen to their characters (often citing personal issues with the DM or "balance" issues with the game). I'm not saying that _everyone_ who dislikes save-or-dies is like this... But enough are that it no longer surprises me when I see it at a table.

The other side of the coin rests solely upon bad DMs. Unfortunately, there are also many rotten apples out there who either like to bring personal issues into the game (singling out one character for all the monsters to attack, using only fire-resistant monsters when the wizard just got access to _fireball_, et cetera) that killing characters has become associated with these personality types. DMs can always "win" against a party of characters when they decide to get smarmy with a group, and save-or-die effects are a convenient way for bad DMs like this to murder characters with impunity and claim a flimsy pretense of impartiality.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 8, 2010)

Haven't read the thread yet, but I checked the results first.

Of the 49 Yes's (DM) only 29 names appear.

Of the 60 No's (DM) 57 names appear.

Hrm, looks like someone's got a major case of sour grapes.  Would be nice if people would stop ballot box stuffing just because their favorite pet project happens to not be as popular as they think.

~ or that guests have been voting, which they are completely entitled to.  It would be nice if you don't assume and accuse 'people' of ballot box stuffing just because you don't agree. That sounds more like sour grapes - Plane Sailing ~


----------



## Hussar (Aug 8, 2010)

Verdande said:


> Lemme give a quick bit of fact:
> 
> If you're rolling a save or die, that's a generosity on the part of the DM. You're lucky to even get a _chance_ to live, that's how bad you messed up. You should be dead, but maybe luck will give you a bit of leeway.
> 
> ...




How about:

PC is walking through a forest, is surprised by a poisonous snake (AD&D) and bitten.

What stupid thing has he done?

Funny how everyone takes their examples to ridiculous extremes.  Even the medusa example.  How did I know there was a medusa nearby?  Does every medusa need to be a mental cripple and leave evidence of her presence?  Does every Bodak have to leave hordes of bodies with no marks on them around?

Jumping into lava and encountering a beholder are a bit different dontcha think?

I wonder how many people who have no problems with save or die would be perfectly comfortable with monsters whose every attack does your current HP +11?  After all, what's the difference?


----------



## Agamon (Aug 8, 2010)

The problem here, is that there are some people that enjoy a game where a PC can instantly and/or unexpectedly die, and there are some that don't enjoy it.  I don't think there's any one right way to do it, just a preference.  Or am I way off base here?


----------



## Victim (Aug 8, 2010)

While it is a matter of preference, I think there's some essentially disjointed elements when there's basically plot armor for characters to create an expected level of durability, but then introduce significant instant death chances back in - especially when those become common.  If you want a decent chance of death on common attacks, why bother with HP above 10?

At high levels, lots of characters can have several killing spells or just do more than 50 damage, so combat is as about death lotto as anything else.

As a player, I was perfectly fine living with save or die.  It generally just meant that you need some buffs like Death Ward in your stack.  And it produced some hilarious moments, like a powerful Death Slaad assassin taking a crit on an AoO and dying to massive damage or a buffed up silver dragon failing some pathetic DC Finger of Death from an item.  

3e's combat tended to be strongly weighted towards offense anyway.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 8, 2010)

Verdande said:


> Lemme give a quick bit of fact:
> 
> If you're rolling a save or die, that's a generosity on the part of the DM. You're lucky to even get a _chance_ to live, that's how bad you messed up. You should be dead, but maybe luck will give you a bit of leeway.
> 
> ...




If you have no reason to expect a medusa and start to try fighting it straight on then you only know you effed up when other people turn to stone.  The first PC to be hit did not eff up - he took the most sensible course of action available and was killed by a DM "Gotcha".

If you're charging across an open field and a death god's priest casts Disintegrate on you, that's par for the course.  Anything else leads to either banning the disintegrate spell or the only effective characters being those that can disintegrate dragons - eggshells armed with sledgehammers playing russian roulette.  (Or, come to think of it, adding a long casting time to Disintegrate - so if you don't dodge for 30 seconds you die).

If you kick down a door in a dungeon and poison gas starts to flood the room, that's damn poor dungeon design (poison gas + open room -> dispersed gas; and poison gas + dungeon -> gas throughout the dungeon slightly hurting every monster that breathes down there) and the architect should probably die.

Not _one_ of those situations you mention is a necessary darwin award.  Every single one of those situations is very possibly the result of a jackass DM.



> Those DMs who are against save or die: If a player jumps into a volcano, do you let him live?
> If so, do you let him live if he jumps into the gullet of a dragon?
> If so, do you let him live if he gets stomped by a dragon?




If a player jumps into a volcano, that's something he chose.  And if there's a reason for it I'd give him a chance of success (and massive damage and debilitating injuries).  On the other hand, if someone is _pushed_ into a volcano I'd definitely give them some sort of chance of clambering out taking a lot of damage each round as they do.  It's not instant death on falling so much as almost inevitable death as they start to sink unless they are helped.

If he jumps into the gullet of a dragon, the dragon starts chewing.  Crit bite the first round, breath weapon damage every later round at a minimum.  Chance of survival: low.

If someone gets stomped by a dragon, that's normal attack and damage rolls.  Not one shot of DM fiat.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 8, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Haven't read the thread yet, but I checked the results first.
> 
> Of the 49 Yes's (DM) only 29 names appear.
> 
> ...




I don't even know what this post means.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 8, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> If you have no reason to expect a medusa and start to try fighting it straight on then you only know you effed up when other people turn to stone.  The first PC to be hit did not eff up - he took the most sensible course of action available and was killed by a DM "Gotcha".




It'd be better if you actually read and responded to the actual example. Verdande didn't say a medusa jumped out of a closet and boom! killed the PCs with its gaze. he said the fighter was going toe to toe with the medusa without precautions. There's no "gotcha" -- there's a player who either doesn't understand the potential consequences, or doesn't care. In either case, they're stone.



> If you're charging across an open field and a death god's priest casts Disintegrate on you, that's par for the course.  Anything else leads to either banning the disintegrate spell or the only effective characters being those that can disintegrate dragons - eggshells armed with sledgehammers playing russian roulette.  (Or, come to think of it, adding a long casting time to Disintegrate - so if you don't dodge for 30 seconds you die).




Huh?



> If you kick down a door in a dungeon and poison gas starts to flood the room, that's damn poor dungeon design (poison gas + open room -> dispersed gas; and poison gas + dungeon -> gas throughout the dungeon slightly hurting every monster that breathes down there) and the architect should probably die.




You're dodging the question by invoking "bad design".


----------



## BryonD (Aug 8, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I agree. I much prefer the 4E medusa, for example, where you're first slowed, then immobilized, then petrified as you fail saves. That builds up tension, and does a good job of modeling being gradually overcome by the effect.
> 
> As I understand it, Pathfinder made save-or-suck effects akin to hold person, where the victim gets a save every round. That's also a decided improvement; one failed save doesn't keep you out of the encounter entirely.



You can see my opinion on medusa in my sig.  

Suffice it to say, I really have no interest in the 4E approach.  It isn't really about "fear" so much as "fun.

In the myth, if you see Medusa you turn to stone.  Not even "save or die", just do it and die.  That is scary.  The tension exists in the prospect of facing such a terrible threat.  If you meet the gaze of medusa becoming slowed does not increase tension, to me, it just reveals that there is no simulation present here.  It proves that you are playing a tactical boardgame in which getting the story right has been completely set aside.  I don't see "oh my god, I've been slowed by a medusa, this is getting tense."  I see:"whew, I saw Medusa, but it was a sub-medusa, I'm still here."  The tactical situation may be more precarious than it was.  So there is certainly gamist tension.  But the dramatic tension is absent.

In PF, medusas are unchanged.  Several of the the forms of petrification have been given simple outs.  I prefer 3E versions.  But, it is important to note that the PF versions do a much better job of sticking to a story idea.

For example, the basilisk is still save or die, but basilisk blood is a cure.


----------



## jaerdaph (Aug 8, 2010)

Umbran said:


> It looks, quacks, and walks like a duck:




*If it falls like a duck in lava, it dies (no save). *


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Aug 8, 2010)

BryonD said:


> In PF, medusas are unchanged.  Several of the the forms of petrification have been given simple outs.  I prefer 3E versions.  But, it is important to note that the PF versions do a much better job of sticking to a story idea.
> 
> For example, the basilisk is still save or die, but basilisk blood is a cure.




My impression, reading the bestiary, is that you are less likely to get a SoD at low levels, and very likely at highs. And low leves SoDs hit less harder and is easier to cure them without Clerical Bend-aid.

BTW, the basilisk blood thing is just BRILLIANT. The fight is scary, but if adventurers survive, it's possible to take them back. But _vae victis_.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 8, 2010)

Hussar said:


> How about:
> 
> PC is walking through a forest, is surprised by a poisonous snake (AD&D) and bitten.
> 
> ...




Agreed 100%...and where's the Heroism in such scenarios?  What if the DM (Athena) hadn't provided Perseus (the PC) with his nice shiny shield?

Imagine Perseus having to make a saving throw against the Gorgon (Medusa) and failing...end of story, no Heroism for you (and by extension, no Hercules either).  Thanks for playing Perseus.  Why don't you go sit over in the corner with Odysseus (he failed his save with the Sirens), and work on making a new character.  Name the next one Aeneas and see if you have better luck next game session...

Save-or-Die only works when it's rare, the DM has provided the tools or clues necessary to deal with it, and a failed result can still be portrayed in a Heroic manner.  Otherwise, IMO, Save-or-Die simply Sucks!


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 8, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> *If it falls like a duck in lava, it dies (no save). *




Of course!  But it's also the DM's job to provide "the Duck" all the tools it needs to avoid falling in the lava in the first place.

Also, what you're talking about isn't a Save-or-Die situation.  You're talking about "_You're Dead-No Save"_.

I just happen to be watching Star Wars at the moment, so how about these for examples:

Luke has just lost his hand to Vaders lightsaber, and been told that Vader's his father.  Rather than give in and surrender to Vader, Luke takes the only real option left open to him...a Heroic and Honourable option...he let's go and simply falls...

The DM decides that instead of just splatting (Save-or-Die) at the end of his fall (cause where's the cool Heroism in that?), he has Luke fall into a ventilation tube and slow down as he slides through it's twists and turns (battered but still alive).  But, the DM isn't done with him and wants to keep the tension going, so he has a vent door open just beneath where Luke has come to rest: 

DM: Luke, make a Reflex save to grab the antenna...

Luke: Damn! I rolled a five...I missed!

DM: too bad...your dead.  So much for redeeming your father and destroying the Evil Galactic Empire.  As your body falls into the gas planet of Bespin and is slowly crushed by the increasing atmospheric pressure, you get a flash of the future from the Force.  You see the Rebellion crushed, your friends dead, your Father completely lost to Evil, and the Galaxy eventually fully corrupted by the Emperor.  Pity.


*OR*​​ 
DM: Luke, make a Reflex save to grab the antenna...

Luke: Damn! I rolled a five...I missed!

DM: Yes...you miss grabbing the antenna with your remaining good hand...but, you land on a crossbar in a seated position and then fall backwards, barely hooking your legs over it and stopping your fall.  You're now hanging upside down and can feel the antenna groaning and threatening to break free...  What do you do now?


*OR*​​ 
DM: Luke, make a Reflex save to grab the antenna...

Luke: Okay, I realise that If I miss this I'm quite likely dead, so I'm going to use an Action Point for a bonus on the roll...Okay, I roll a five, but with my bonus from the Actio Point I have a 15...just made it! 

DM: Yup, you _just_ made it, so...you miss grabbing the antenna with your remaining good hand...but, you land on a crossbar in a seated position and then fall backwards, barely hooking your legs over it and stopping your fall.  You're now hanging upside down and can feel the antenna groaning and threatening to break free...  What do you do now?



Also, using the Lava example, imagine what Star Wars Episode III (Revenge of the Sith), and all the remaining stories (the originals), would have been like if Anakin had needed to make a Save-or-Die roll for falling into lava:


DM: Anakin, you fall after a devastating hit from Obi Wan.  You've fallen into the edge of the Lava lake!  Make a save...

Anakin:  Rolled a 2...Damn, I missed!

DM: Sorry, you're dead.  Without your support, Palpatine is now unable to fend off the remaining Jedi Knights, and his Empire fails before really getting started.  The Jedi now face the challenge of restoring a Republic Senate in tatters...

*OR*​​DM: Anakin, you fall after a devastating hit from Obi Wan.  You've fallen into the edge of the Lava lake!  Make a save...

Anakin:  Rolled a 2...Damn, I missed!

DM: Yup, you missed.  As you slide into the lava lake you feel the intense heat begin to burn your limbs away.  The pain is phenomenally intense.  Only your hatred and the power of the Dark Side keep you from succumbing to unconsciousness and inevitable death.  The pain and hate solidifies your focus to someday see Obi Wan dead at your feet...even as he pulls your ravaged body away from certain death.  From this moment on you are no longer Anakin Skywalker - you are Darth Vader...and you will have your revenge!



I know which one's I would choose as the cooler option...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 8, 2010)

BryonD said:
			
		

> In the myth, if you see Medusa you turn to stone. Not even "save or die", just do it and die. That is scary. The tension exists in the prospect of facing such a terrible threat. If you meet the gaze of medusa becoming slowed does not increase tension, to me, it just reveals that there is no simulation present here.




I take a slightly different tack. 

If I look at the Medusa and I don't turn to stone instantly, it means *I am more powerful than Perseus*! Which is awesome! Sure, now the medusa is not as big of a threat, but wait until you fight the whole Medusas-Mounted-On-Basilisks-with-Stone-Golem-Allies Armada! That sort of wahoo is stuff D&D can embrace! 

Because, ultimately, myths are very binary. That's part of their appeal, part of how they are told and passed down, but they are, nonetheless. Achilles is invincible *unless hit in a specific spot*. The Werewolf is invincible *unless hit with a specific weapon*. Vampires will kick your but have a few *specific weaknesses*. 

Generally, that makes for less-than-satisfying gameplay, however. Especially if, like the myths, you're being very narrative about your game, and you value characters that have continuity.

So your characters, at least, are exceptions to the binary rule. They could kill a werewolf without silver. They're just that badass.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 8, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> Agreed 100%...and where's the Heroism in such scenarios?




The Heroes are the ones who make it. The character that lives to 2nd level is a bigger hero than the one that dies 10 XP from 2nd level. The character that lives to be 5th level is more heroic than the 2nd level character, and so on. RPG characters are not like characters from books or movies or even myths: their fates are not yet written. Whether they are noble heroes or die ignobly on the points of kobold punji sticks is yet to be determined.


----------



## jaerdaph (Aug 8, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> Also, using the Lava example, imagine what Star Wars Episode III (Revenge of the Sith), and all the remaining stories (the originals), would have been like if Anakin had needed to make a Save-or-Die roll for falling into lava:




Well, I have it from a *very reliable source*^1 that George Lucas said what we see in Episode III is _not_ lava^2 but is in fact *plasma*, thus we get Darth Vader instead of Anakin dead (no save). 

1. Some guy who changed the oil for the mailman that delivered the invitation for a wedding where one of the guests once met the former housekeeper for George Lucas at Skywalker Ranch.

2. Or magma. Or superheated rock.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 8, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> Imagine Perseus having to make a saving throw against the Gorgon (Medusa) and failing...end of story, no Heroism for you (and by extension, no Hercules either).  Thanks for playing Perseus.  Why don't you go sit over in the corner with Odysseus (he failed his save with the Sirens), and work on making a new character.  Name the next one Aeneas and see if you have better luck next game session...



The question is: was Perseus a destined to be a legendary hero _before_ he defeated Medusa or did he come to be viewed as a legendary _after_ he defeated her and had legends written about him?  What about all the poor schmucks who went before him and had their faces petrified?  They may well have been heroic, but they didn't become Legendary Heroes.

To my mind, it really depends on how the group views the PCs in the context of the campaign.

Is it automatically assumed from the get go that the PCs are grand heroes, destined to become legends and sung of by bards for a thousand years? Then eliminate SoDs, etc, because the story is about heroes who will be celebrated long after their time, and are the antithesis of the anticlimax.  Viewed this way, Perseus was born to be a legend, selected by the Fates to follow a destiny of great deeds and heroism.  No save or die for Perseus, because he still has more Things of Consequence to accomplish in life!

Or, on the other hand, is the assumption that only select PCs will join the ranks of the legendary heroes, that only the canniest, or most cautious, or strongest, or most gifted, or simply luckiest will make it?  In this case, keep the SoDs, etc, in and let the dice fall where they may so that an _unwritten_ destiny selects the long-lived heros.  Viewed like this, Perseus made the gamble-- with a little help!-- and became the luckiest schmuck among many.  And _that_'s the only reason we remember him and not poor old Bob the Ambitious who took on Medusa the week before. Perseus made his save, while Bob did not-- and Bob's player had to roll up a new character.

Either approach is perfectly good, and is purely dependent upon the type of game the group wants.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 8, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> The question is: was Perseus a destined to be a legendary hero _before_ he defeated Medusa or did he come to be viewed as a legendary _after_ he defeated her and had legends written about him? What about all the poor schmucks who went before him and had their faces petrified? They may well have been heroic, but they didn't become Legendary Heroes...




Then this begs the question:

Do we want to play Heroes, or characters trying to become Heroes?


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 8, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> Well, I have it from a *very reliable source*...




Well then...as long as it's a reliable source...  (LOL!)


----------



## malraux (Aug 8, 2010)

Personally, I think that what makes for a good literary hero, especially a greek literary hero, is not the same as what makes for a good heroic game.  i don't really care about emulating the greek myth as much as I care about playing a fun game.


----------



## Dykstrav (Aug 8, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> Then this begs the question:
> 
> Do we want to play Heroes, or characters trying to become Heroes?




Please, help me understand your point of view on this, because here's something that I don't understand...

Why is it assumed that heroes are successful most of the time? Or that bad things never happen to heroes?

I've always felt that heroes are people who are outmatched by their circumstances that display courage and self-sacrifice. The classical or narrative definitions may or may not apply in gaming... But to me, heroism is more about attitude than accomplishment.

A courageous farmboy with a pitchfork defending his barn from a handful of orc raiders is a hero to me--he has drawn a line in the sand and is willing to pay in blood (whether his or the attackers) to hold that line. Sure, those orcs are probably going to tear him limb from limb, but not without a fight.

On the other hand, a traveling knight on patrol that happens upon the scene is probably less heroic in my eyes--as the knight is heavily armed and trained for battle, his decision to engage the orc raiders is really more of a non-decision. They don't present as much of a challenge to him (unless they get really lucky), and he knows that he can cut them to ribbons before he even draws his sword. He engages the orc raiders because he's _expected_ to and _well-prepared_ for it, not because he's a hero.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 8, 2010)

BryonD said:


> You can see my opinion on medusa in my sig.



Yeah, I think I've mentioned my thoughts on the applicability of your sig to RPGs before.



BryonD said:


> Suffice it to say, I really have no interest in the 4E approach.  It isn't really about "fear" so much as "fun.



That's what a lot of 4E fans say as well.



BryonD said:


> In the myth, if you see Medusa you turn to stone.  Not even "save or die", just do it and die.  That is scary.



Of course you don't see the save or die, since the save is an abstraction which represents averting one's gaze before the effect takes hold. So when they die, it's because they failed the save. If they don't, it's because they made the save.

But we're talking about stories here, which are not the same thing as RPGs, of course.



BryonD said:


> The tension exists in the prospect of facing such a terrible threat.  If you meet the gaze of medusa becoming slowed does not increase tension, to me, it just reveals that there is no simulation present here.  It proves that you are playing a tactical boardgame in which getting the story right has been completely set aside.  I don't see "oh my god, I've been slowed by a medusa, this is getting tense."  I see:"whew, I saw Medusa, but it was a sub-medusa, I'm still here."  The tactical situation may be more precarious than it was.  So there is certainly gamist tension.  But the dramatic tension is absent.



To you, sure. To me, there's no dramatic tension in suddenly being out of the story; building up to such a situation provides more tension. Beyond that, if my goal is dramatic tension, then reading a story would generally be a better choice. There's more to RPGs (notably the G part) than dramatic stories.


----------



## malraux (Aug 8, 2010)

Dykstrav said:


> Please, help me understand your point of view on this, because here's something that I don't understand...
> 
> Why is it assumed that heroes are successful most of the time? Or that bad things never happen to heroes?
> 
> I've always felt that heroes are people who are outmatched by their circumstances that display courage and self-sacrifice. The classical or narrative definitions may or may not apply in gaming... But to me, heroism is more about attitude than accomplishment.




I personally think the only truly heroic RPG out there is Call of Cthulhu.  It's about people giving up everything they have to save the world in acts so incomprehensible that no one will even believe they happened.


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 8, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I wonder how many people who have no problems with save or die would be perfectly comfortable with monsters whose every attack does your current HP +11?  After all, what's the difference?



Orc with a greataxe - every hit had this potential for a number of characters until 3rd level or so.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 8, 2010)

Reynard said:


> The Heroes are the ones who make it. The character that lives to 2nd level is a bigger hero than the one that dies 10 XP from 2nd level. The character that lives to be 5th level is more heroic than the 2nd level character, and so on. RPG characters are not like characters from books or movies or even myths: their fates are not yet written. Whether they are noble heroes or die ignobly on the points of kobold punji sticks is yet to be determined.



This is true, which is why BryonD's comparison to myths is not a good one, since those are stories that have already happened.

However, that being said, many people like to play D&D in order to do heroic things. Not to do things and hope that one of their characters kills enough rats to be able to do something heroic later on. If that's what they enjoy doing, then obviously save-or-die is going to suck. And no amount of "but what about the dramatic tension?" is going to change how they like to play.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 8, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> Then this begs the question:
> 
> Do we want to play Heroes, or characters trying to become Heroes?



_
Exactly!_ 

Or, put a different way: different strokes for different folks.  I happen to enjoy the "trying to become a hero", or even "unwillingly becoming a hero" kind of game.  But I also appreciate the "Look at me!  I'm a hero! Woohoo!" mode of play.

And contrary to what many people claim, D&D (and other systems) supports both with tinkering, at least to the degree that keeps me & my group happy.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 8, 2010)

Dykstrav said:


> Why is it assumed that heroes are successful most of the time? Or that bad things never happen to heroes?



Because heroic stories are only told about the heroes who did heroic things...not those that died before they could do anything heroic, if you follow me.

You're looking at it backwards. I'd say that heroes are successful most of the time because those who are successful most of the time are heroes. Bad things do happen to heroes, but typically they are things the hero overcomes, not typically being turned to stone in a cave and never being seen again.

Again, stories are not games.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 8, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> This is true, which is why BryonD's comparison to myths is not a good one, since those are stories that have already happened.
> 
> However, that being said, many people like to play D&D in order to do heroic things. Not to do things and hope that one of their characters kills enough rats to be able to do something heroic later on. If that's what they enjoy doing, then obviously save-or-die is going to suck. And no amount of "but what about the dramatic tension?" is going to change how they like to play.




True enough, but I think that in the end it is better to include the option and trust individual groups to un-include it. The same goes for the "fragile" early levels (where an orc with a 2 handed sword's every swing is a "save or die" moment). If groups want to start out as heroes and ensure bad luck will never undo their heroism, that group can start at 5th level, remove save or die effects and include Action points. The game doesn't need to be changed or restricted to accomodate that group.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 8, 2010)

I am a GM and player. I like the idea of save or die, but some effects are implemented that way that would work better otherwise. For example, Basic D&D had poison as save or die by default in most cases, and many death spells would make a lot more sense if they inflicted massive damage.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 8, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I am a GM and player. I like the idea of save or die, but some effects are implemented that way that would work better otherwise. For example, Basic D&D had poison as save or die by default in most cases, and many death spells would make a lot more sense if they inflicted massive damage.




I only think that's true if damage was more granular. If, for example, one used Wound and Vitality points in D&D, I'd agree. "Finger of Death" could do 4d6 Wound Damage (no save) and work fine: it would outright kill your average milieu citizen and a good portion of your typical "hero" characters to boot, on an average roll.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 8, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> ...Again, stories are not games.




Wrong...mine are both.  YMMV though.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 8, 2010)

El Mahdi said:
			
		

> Wrong...mine are both.  YMMV though.




"Stories are not games" =/= "games are not stories."


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 8, 2010)

Reynard said:


> I only think that's true if damage was more granular. If, for example, one used Wound and Vitality points in D&D, I'd agree. "Finger of Death" could do 4d6 Wound Damage (no save) and work fine: it would outright kill your average milieu citizen and a good portion of your typical "hero" characters to boot, on an average roll.




I can see a powerful creature/demon/Gandalf shrugging off Finger of Death. It's not something a "normal" person could do. To me, that sounds like a very large damage effect.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 8, 2010)

Dykstrav said:


> Please, help me understand your point of view on this, because here's something that I don't understand...




I'll do my best.



Dykstrav said:


> Why is it assumed that heroes are successful most of the time? Or that bad things never happen to heroes?




I don't assume that Heroes are successful all the time.  I'll use Star Wars as an example again.  They go from defeat to defeat until finally, through perseverence, they defeat the Evil Empire.  They fail far more than they succeed.  But, if those points of failure had been Save-or-Die moments, they're never going to last long enough to persevere and finally win.

So, in the context of Save-or-Dies and those saying their exclusion is wrong, my question would be: _Why does Death seem to be the only form of failure that matters?_

I see many other possible results besides death...and most of them not independantly considered a _"success"_.  There are tons of bad things that can happen to Heroes besides simple death.  To me, death is boring.  Death is common and mundane...and too much like the real world.  In my games, my players know there are many, many fates worse than death.  Sometimes, I think they might actually appreciate a simple death rather than some of the tribulations I put them through.  But I also know that's just momentary...in the end they enjoy what they endured and survived in order to get to the prize.  (Or at least that's what they tell me.)  But you can be sure, they do not feel that I coddled them by not using Save-or-Die effects.  Removing them does not mean one has turned their Dungeon into a padded romper room! (As some in this thread have portrayed it.)

I am not trying to say that Save-or-Dies are wrong.  If that's the trigger that delivers a thrill for other DM's, player's, and games, then by all means it's the absolutely right thing to be using.  I and my group however, do not get a thrill from Save-or-Dies.  And my posts explain why.



Dykstrav said:


> I've always felt that heroes are people who are outmatched by their circumstances that display courage and self-sacrifice. The classical or narrative definitions may or may not apply in gaming... But to me, heroism is more about attitude than accomplishment.




I agree!  My question is: How does a meaningless, random death highlight a heroic attitude or a sense of self-sacrifice?  Self-sacrifice is throwing yourself in front of the Medusa's gaze in order to save your friend...not walking around a corner and coming face to face with a Medusa, and simply dying... (No drama, no tension, no chance...for me, no fun.)



Dykstrav said:


> A courageous farmboy with a pitchfork defending his barn from a handful of orc raiders is a hero to me--he has drawn a line in the sand and is willing to pay in blood (whether his or the attackers) to hold that line. Sure, those orcs are probably going to tear him limb from limb, but not without a fight.




Yup.  Agreed 100% again.  I wonder though, do you see Heroism in dying from the Orc's first swing, simply due to the randomness of the dice?  Where's the fight?  Where's the "holding the line"?  For me _"You Shall Not Pass!",_ and the fight that follows, I find Heroic.  _"You Shall Not...(ahhh...gurgle...gurgle...thump)"_ - not so much.



Dykstrav said:


> On the other hand, a traveling knight on patrol that happens upon the scene is probably less heroic in my eyes--as the knight is heavily armed and trained for battle, his decision to engage the orc raiders is really more of a non-decision. They don't present as much of a challenge to him (unless they get really lucky), and he knows that he can cut them to ribbons before he even draws his sword. He engages the orc raiders because he's _expected_ to and _well-prepared_ for it, not because he's a hero.




I don't agree.  He may have more resources and better odds, but the threat of death is still there.  He doesn't know if they have friends, or an entire army, waiting in the woods.  He doesn't know that they don't have some magic capable of defeating him.  Success is not guaranteed.  And, just because his decision is more automatic, doesn't make it any less significant.  How is someone who does the right thing...the Heroic thing..._as a matter of course_, considered less Heroic than the one that _considers whether or not to do the right thing_ before doing it?


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Aug 8, 2010)

Poll needs to be multiple choice: I am a Player _and_ DM.

I loath save-or-die with a passion that I cannot describe.  I can only suppose two reasons:

*I hate death being easy:* If easy things are not accomplishments than death should not be easy because DEATH should be an accomplishment.  It should be EARNED.

*I also hate the excitement of surviving them:* For the above reason I feel horrible for surviving death if it's easy, and nothing is easier than doing something random and waiting for an outcome.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 8, 2010)

Dykstrav said:


> A courageous farmboy with a pitchfork defending his barn from a handful of orc raiders is a hero to me--he has drawn a line in the sand and is willing to pay in blood (whether his or the attackers) to hold that line. Sure, those orcs are probably going to tear him limb from limb, but not without a fight.




If he's going to die pointlessly, he's a brave fool, not a hero.  If he's sacrificing himself to give his family time to flee, then he's a hero - in the Christian sense rather than the classic Hellenic sense, of course.  The Hellenic hero, like the Hollywood action hero or the D&D 4th level Fighter, is a Hero because he can kick the orcs' butt.


----------



## Storminator (Aug 8, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I agree. I much prefer the 4E medusa, for example, where you're first slowed, then immobilized, then petrified as you fail saves. That builds up tension, and does a good job of modeling being gradually overcome by the effect.




Our 4e encounter with a medusa was absolutely fantastic. We didn't realize the hooded archer was a medusa until she whipped off the hood and gazed us. Then we had a stack of PCs that needed to make saves REAL BAD. Which was cool and scaring and dramatic. And we were still getting shot at.

PS


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 8, 2010)

While there may or may not be ballot stuffing, there is _certainly_ a lot of anonymous voters all flocking to the same decision.

As for save or dies, kill them.  Get rid of them.  The 4e mechanic is drastically better and introduces not just more fun but more dread, and I've adopted it to my non-4e games.  D&D has always grappled with horror and how to implement it, and here's a big major awesome tip to DMs (Seriously you'll thank me for this, it's the best advice for horror you'll see about the game) - horror is not "Hah hah you failed your save, you died."  That's not scary.  It's annoying.  It's irritating.  It's stupid.  It's frustrating.  It's not scary.

Scary is "You're body is slowly solidifying into stone; at this rate, you won't be going much longer."  And then in the next round, "You feel your arms and legs creak and slow, and cracks begin to fade away on your now grey skin as it spreads even farther."  And then in the next round, "You kill the medusa, and the march of petrification across your body begins to reverse.  You've survived."

That's awesome, dramatic, and _scary as hell_.  It's the difference between a slow building tense scariness, and some guy in a closet jumping out and yelling "Boogity boogity boo!"  In the first example, when are you going to be scared?  There's no moment of fear.  Just "Welp, you're gone."  In the second example, there's _lots_ of time to be afraid.  A slow death is drastically scarier then a sudden one.

Right now, D&D is still wrestling with wether it's *high flying adventure!* or *Grim and gritty sword and sorcery*.  People who generally like saving throws prefer the second option, where life is cheap, death is common, and there are no true heroes.

But that's the rub, isn't it?  Don't whinge and claim that big saving throws make for big heroes - it doesn't.  That style of gameplay has nothing to do with heroism.  There's nothing heroic about slowly prodding forward in a dungeon, checking every cobblestone for traps, then the cealing, then the walls, and then the treasure, because they're all actually monsters and welp there goes another party.  There's nothing heroic about TPKs to poisonous gas attacks.  When a fighter grabs the nearby scythe to fend off some maurading orcs, that is heroic.  When the orcs just kill him and then destroy the farm, that's _not_ heroic, and here's the interesting point - the first can happen without the second ever even being an option.

When Perseus fought medusa, there weren't any dice being rolled.  The storyteller made up a story all on his own and then nodded and said "And that's what happened, the end."  Don't pretend it's some awesome example of gameplay.  It's not.

Counterpoint, when Perseus fought medusa, the DMPC gave him a magical item that rendered the medusa's attack useless.  Those aren't swingy odds.  That's the DM just sighing and nodding.

Counterpoint, when Perseus fought medusa, the only reason he was able to be heroic is because he _got rid of the save or die effect entirely_.  Yes, the only way to be a hero - by your own sig example! - is to get rid of the save or dies.  Thanks for agreeing!


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 8, 2010)

I'm not really down with the idea of small fry monsters, like 1HD spiders and the like, having save-or-dies. It means such beasts can fairly easily kill a high level character, which seems wrong to me. For powerful monsters like medusa or Shelob then it's more acceptable.

Actually I'm hard pressed to think of a D&D monster that has enough status to deserve a SoD other than a medusa. Bodaks are far too naff.

Another way to go would be to distinguish between medusa the race and The Medusa a la Greek myth and Birthright. Only the one 'true medusa' has a SoD, all the lesser medusae just have something like 4e. They're wusses!


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 8, 2010)

Lots of great points in this post, Prof.



ProfessorCirno said:


> That's awesome, dramatic, and _scary as hell_.  It's the difference between a slow building tense scariness, and some guy in a closet jumping out and yelling "Boogity boogity boo!"  In the first example, when are you going to be scared?  There's no moment of fear.  Just "Welp, you're gone."  In the second example, there's _lots_ of time to be afraid.  A slow death is drastically scarier then a sudden one.



Good insight into the nature of horror. It's in the tense build up, not the release.

You can get that tension with a SoD monster but it's in the rumours and clues the PCs learn prior to engaging. The statues outside and so forth. However one does not need SoD for this, one just needs a powerful monster that's been around long enough to get a bad rep. Or one that establishes its bad rep over the course of the game. It's no coincidence that the opening scene in a horror movie is often of some random schmoe getting kilt by the monster.



> Right now, D&D is still wrestling with wether it's *high flying adventure!* or *Grim and gritty sword and sorcery*.



Agreed, but I think it's something D&D has always wrestled with, due to always having been a mix of both. Different onlookers emphasise different parts, according to taste.


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 8, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> While there may or may not be ballot stuffing, there is _certainly_ a lot of anonymous voters all flocking to the same decision.



So what? If you look at any of the other public polls there are a lot of anonymous voters in all of them. Just look at the "do polls prove anything" poll - it looks like over half of the voters are anonymous.


----------



## malraux (Aug 8, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> So what? If you look at any of the other public polls there are a lot of anonymous voters in all of them. Just look at the "do polls prove anything" poll - it looks like over half of the voters are anonymous.




Its a lot easier to freep a poll anonymously than it is to freep a poll with legit users.  If all the anonymous users are going for a particular choice, its certainly a reason to suspect ballot stuffing.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 8, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> Just look at the "do polls prove anything" poll - it looks like over half of the voters are anonymous.


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Aug 8, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Counterpoint, when Perseus fought medusa, the only reason he was able to be heroic is because he _got rid of the save or die effect entirely_.  Yes, the only way to be a hero - by your own sig example! - is to get rid of the save or dies.  Thanks for agreeing!




In fact, once you see the medusa gaze attack like a defensive, instead of offensive ability, the game suddenly changes. 

Find a strategy to not face the gaze, that's the challenge. the strategy will anyway give an edge to the medusa (that's the defensive ability).

This is why I like SoD. Is just another way to make players imaginative. Of course, just jump with a medusa into the inn to stone every person there.. is different. I don't like SoD because I like to deliver nasty surprises to players. Those are good too, but only if wll made and leaving them choices.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 8, 2010)

Kaiyanwang said:


> In fact, once you see the medusa gaze attack like a defensive, instead of offensive ability, the game suddenly changes.
> 
> Find a strategy to not face the gaze, that's the challenge. the strategy will anyway give an edge to the medusa (that's the defensive ability).
> 
> This is why I like SoD. Is just another way to make players imaginative. Of course, just jump with a medusa into the inn to stone every person there.. is different. I don't like SoD because I like to deliver nasty surprises to players. Those are good too, but only if wll made and leaving them choices.




This leads to a rather complicated problem that came up in 3.x, at the least.

If you aren't prepared for the ability, it's SoD, and you most likely die.  TPK, nobody has fun.

If you are prepared for the ability, it may as well not exist.  There's no tension.  That one ability is the enemy's main draw.  Absurdedly easy victory, again, not very fun.

It's a really difficult balancing act, to say the least.


----------



## athos (Aug 8, 2010)

Ya know, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If the players use save or die spells on my poor little monsters, it is only fair that the monsters respond in kind when they can.  

Now the no save and die is even meaner.  If they choose to holy word my minions, then a good blasphemy every now and then is only fair, don't you think?


----------



## Reynard (Aug 8, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> This leads to a rather complicated problem that came up in 3.x, at the least.
> 
> If you aren't prepared for the ability, it's SoD, and you most likely die.  TPK, nobody has fun.
> 
> ...




Why dopes it have to be extremes? That's where this discussion always goes off the rails, with both "sides" turtling up at the edges of their arguments and refusing any middle ground. It's silly and counterproductive.

"Not being prepared" doesn't mean insta-TPK. Don't forget the S in SoD, not to mention everything from initiative to encounter distance to any number of variables. In other words, suggesting that any encounter which includes SoD for which the PCs haven't spent days preparing is a death sentence is ludicrous.

"Being prepared" doesn't mean cake walk, either. There are still a lot of variables -- the same ones in the above example -- that can turn the tide or eliminate or weaken those preparations. And even if the preparations -- Death Ward, say -- negate a SoD or similar ability, it doesn't make the ability irrelevent because the PCs still had to use resources to avoid the ability, so it did its "job". In other words, suggesting that any encounter which includes SoD for which the PCs have prepared is meaningless is ludicrous.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 9, 2010)

RE: The Medusa.

In FFZ, the medusa does have a "save or die" effect: she can petrify a character basically by deciding to do it. 

And then you've got three friends who can all make it better with a simple potion.

If the enemies and allies are matched (1 for 1), then there's a chance that it becomes a TPK. Of course, even a TPK isn't that big of a deal in FFZ (it sucks, but it's certainly not the end of the game). The way to avoid that TPK is to prepare yourself ahead of time by finding, buying, or making things that will prevent that status from sticking, or that will prevent the medusa from using her ability to turn you to stone. 

I'm not sure that's fit for D&D, but I find it's a very workable solution in this case. 

I think, for D&D, I like the "gradually worsening conditions" aspect, and just saying that the D&D characters you play are badass enough to overcome it momentarily, while basic nobodies are instantly transformed.

I'm also a bit of a fan of "damage with special effect at 0 hp," though I haven't seen a lot of that. Meet the Medusa's gaze, and you take damage as your body turns slowly to stone, and if it reduces you to 0 hp, you become petrified, but if you're not at 0 hp, you don't need to worry about it. This makes HP more of an arbiter of "when things go wrong" then saves or anything does.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 9, 2010)

malraux said:


> Gotta agree with that.  And of course, Stone to Flesh forces a true save or die, though there's still Break Enchantment.
> 
> Personally, Save or Die effects in the 3e mold are on my game no-no list.  Its the kind of thing where I'll walk out of the game and just not come back.  They don't inspire fear in me, just absolute unfun.  I've had too many situations of showing up then sitting out for the rest of the night having rolled a single die to fail a saving throw.



I've said it many times, but here's once more:

The way to beat this is to play more than one character.  And the deadlier the game, the more essential this becomes.

That way, you still have something to do when (not if) one of 'em dies, gets turned to stone, gets paralyzed, or whatever.

Lan-"if both go down at once, you're just unlucky"-efan


----------



## Chainsaw (Aug 9, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> So I'm seeing a thread where a few GMs are like, "Save or Die and other effects like level drain are essential to spread fear into the player base!"
> 
> And I'm curious if the old informal poll backs those numbers.




In games I've played, if you're rolling save or die, then you've already done something really, really stupid and you're getting a last chance to survive. I think of it as a gift, actually. A chance that I might be OK despite doing something idiotic. I'm sure that's not the case with everyone. I'm sure many people have suffered occasions of the mechanic being abused all to hell. Time for a new DM! 

"So, we walk into the tavern, sit down and have a beer."
"Save or die!"
"WTF?!?"
"Yeah, you didn't inspect the beer first to notice it was acid."

Edit: I voted yes as a player.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 9, 2010)

Chainsaw said:


> ..."Yeah, you didn't inspect the beer first to notice it was acid."




That's just wrong on so many levels. The foremost being it's a crime against Humanity to mess with BEER!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 9, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> I've said it many times, but here's once more:
> 
> The way to beat this is to play more than one character.  And the deadlier the game, the more essential this becomes.
> 
> ...




Doesn't work too well in games like Hero or 4e where the increase in players is a massive increase in combat time.

On the other hand, despite the complexity of Rolemaster in terms of critical hits, due to those critical hits, it can work wonders.


----------



## Psion (Aug 9, 2010)

Yes, with caveats. In 4e terms, I think it should only be for solo creatures. It shouldn't be spammed through an adventure like packs of bodaks or half-basilisk lizardmen (to cite something from an actual 3rd party adventure.)

Facing a villain with a powerful attack like this is a great source of tension, but can't be used naively. You need a bit of foreshadowing, and should reserve the villain for a dramatic point in the game.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 9, 2010)

I voted yes as as DM but I also vote the same as a player. The mechanic cuts both ways and provides extra drama and excitement. I play the game for the awesome moments and SOD helps to provide more of them.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 9, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> A slow death is drastically scarier then a sudden one.



Drastically more annoying, too.  If my character's gonna die, just get on with it and kill him.  Nothing's worse than watching for several rounds in full knowledge my character is dying and nobody can save him.



> Right now, D&D is still wrestling with wether it's *high flying adventure!* or *Grim and gritty sword and sorcery*.  People who generally like saving throws prefer the second option, where life is cheap, death is common, and there are no true heroes.



Yes there are.  The heroes, as others have mentioned, are the ones that survive.

If a town is being menaced by a gang of Orcs and our intrepid crew goes out to take down said Orcs; if I'm the only survivor who comes staggering bloodstained back into town with (demonstrably accurate) news the Orcs are all dead, I'm going to be the hero.  It's just that simple. 



> When Perseus fought medusa, there weren't any dice being rolled.



With all this talk about Perseus, I find it somewhat fitting that my game's current iron man (i.e. longest-surviving character) is named Perseus...and that thus far in his career he/his party have met and defeated at least two Medusae...

Lan-"however, others in his party have not always been so lucky"-efan


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 9, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Drastically more annoying, too.  If my character's gonna die, just get on with it and kill him.  Nothing's worse than watching for several rounds in full knowledge my character is dying and nobody can save him.




You're assuming the death is _certain_, which tells me you have _no idea how 4e save effects work_.



> Yes there are.  The heroes, as others have mentioned, are the ones that survive.




You misunderstand.

Look at the sword and sorcery style gameplay where this is most evident or in the literature.  The characters aren't "heroes," though they are protagonists.  They aren't guided by morality or the desire to do good.  The standard dungeon crawl came purely out of "There's treasure in there, go get it."

It's interesting, because each edition leans more towards adventure over grim and grittiness.  As alignment became more codified, it was more excepted that adventurers were such for reasons of morality rather then pure greed.  Settings became more complex and filled in, which in turn gave rise to bigger and more complex backstories to characters.  Character options grew, as did both the ability to and the desire to fully customize your character beyond just "fighting man" or "wizard."



> If a town is being menaced by a gang of Orcs and our intrepid crew goes out to take down said Orcs; if I'm the only survivor who comes staggering bloodstained back into town with (demonstrably accurate) news the Orcs are all dead, I'm going to be the hero.  It's just that simple.




That has nothing to do with what we're talking about.



> With all this talk about Perseus, I find it somewhat fitting that my game's current iron man (i.e. longest-surviving character) is named Perseus...and that thus far in his career he/his party have met and defeated at least two Medusae...
> 
> Lan-"however, others in his party have not always been so lucky"-efan




All this talk about literary characters in general are interesting, because protagonists in general don't die in books, at least not until the very end climax.  If they do die before then, they're typically brought back to life.  Having a group go through dozens of characters falling like rats doesn't fit any literary tropes.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 9, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Having a group go through dozens of characters falling like rats doesn't fit any literary tropes.




Which is good, since role-playing game sessions are not a form of literature. Now, the recounting of those sessions might be, and if so theTPK could very well qualify as a "literary trope" -- perhaps of a satire or a horror story, for example.

My point is this: story happens after the game, when the events of the game are recounted. During play, it's just the game, and one of the possible outcomes of the game is every character ending up ground meat on a dungeon floor, or worse. Another outcome is them saving the world, getting the girl and ascending to godhood.

Let's see which story we're telling this week, shall we?


----------



## Holy Bovine (Aug 9, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> *If you fall in lava, you die (no save). *
> 
> This is an immutable law.




It's the exception that proves the rule (that save or die sucks!  )

*ahem*  I'm primarily a DM (although I am hanging up my DM hat for the time being) and I *loathe* save or die.  


I just make the PCs _wish_ they were dead!


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 9, 2010)

Should there be _instant death effects_? Yes.
Should there be a save? Maybe.


It's bizarre that an rpg could get to the point where you aren't constantly at some risk of death during combat, but it shouldn't happen. Magic should absolutely have common save or die effects. If anything, nonmagical attacks should be more lethal than they usually are in hp-based games (vp/wp systems are a great way of making sure a lucky crit could kill almost anyone). Magic certainly doesn't need to be less lethal. The threat of death is essential for verisimilitude, game balance, and drama.

That's not to say, that PCs should die every battle, merely that they should have to make some decent rolls and some decent choices to avoid it (and I am in favor of action points and similar mechanics).

Incidentally, I'm more DM than player.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 9, 2010)

> All this talk about literary characters in general are interesting, because protagonists in general don't die in books, at least not until the very end climax. If they do die before then, they're typically brought back to life. Having a group go through dozens of characters falling like rats doesn't fit any literary tropes.




...which is part of why it's basically impossible to permanently die in FFZ. 

You could fail. Oh, boy, could you ever fail. But you will be around to right that failure.

FFZ is a heavily narrative game, though, and I wouldn't expect D&D to be quite that ardent about character continuity.

You're right, though, every edition leans a bit more in that direction than the last did.


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 9, 2010)

Not worth it


----------



## Hussar (Aug 9, 2010)

Reynard said:


> I don't even know what this post means.






			
				Abraxus said:
			
		

> [Threadjack]"What Doug said! I'm not sure you got the point of the "Do Polls prove..." thread... :-/"
> 
> I understand the point of the "do polls prove" thread - but given that it is a joke poll does anyone think someone is taking the time to stuff the ballot box - given that over half the votes are anonymous?? That's why I selected it. Why assume that people are doing it in any other poll with your first post in a thread? Not that you or Doug made that claim... it just boggles my mind, all the "The first thing I'm going to do is assume the worst about anyone who disagrees with me" type posts I've been seeing[/Threadjack]




Umm, well, when one choice on a poll has 30/75 (currently as I post this) anonymous posters, and the other choice has 12/100 anonymous posters, what should we think?  It's just pure coincidence that over half of the poll responses for a particular answer happen to be anonymous?

Given the predilection of some people to absolutely, 100% refuse to believe that their position could possibly be a minority one, yes I am going to presume the worst.  This is the second poll in as many days where the "old school" response has been stuffed.


----------



## Ainamacar (Aug 9, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Umm, well, when one choice on a poll has 30/75 (currently as I post this) anonymous posters, and the other choice has 12/100 anonymous posters, what should we think?  It's just pure coincidence that over half of the poll responses for a particular answer happen to be anonymous?
> 
> Given the predilection of some people to absolutely, 100% refuse to believe that their position could possibly be a minority one, yes I am going to presume the worst.  This is the second poll in as many days where the "old school" response has been stuffed.




I have some lies, damned lies, and (internet) statistics for you, because I'm actually kind of curious.  I will apply a classic test of proportions, with null hypothesis that  the proportion of anonymous voters from each group should be equal.

At the time I carefully counted, there were 75 pro votes with 30 anonymous, and 101 anti votes with 22 anonymous.  I'm only looking at the DM votes, incidentally.

Let n=75 and x=30.  Similarly, let m=101 and y=22.
So the sample proportion of anonymous voters for each group is p_pro = x/n = 0.4, and p_anti = y/m = 0.218.

The pooled probability estimate (OK since I'm testing the evidence that the proportions are equal) that a vote comes from an anonymous voter is p_pool = (x+y)/(n+m) = 0.295

The z-statistic for this test is (p_pro - p_anti)/sqrt(p_pool*(1-p_pool)*(1/n+1/m)) = 2.62, and associated p-value = 2*normal_distribution_CDF(-|z|) = 0.0088.  As with most hypothesis testing the level of significance is up to the investigator, but a p-value this small is strongly suggestive that the null hypothesis is implausible.  Likewise, a two-sided confidence interval with 99% confidence for (p_pro - p_anti) is (.002, .362).  The result consistent with the null hypothesis is just outside this range.  Anyway, if all the assumptions of the method hold the evidence we have suggests there is less than a 1% chance that the true proportion of DMs who are pro-save-or-die and vote anonymously is the same as the proportion of DMs who are anti-save-or-die and vote anonymously.

What assumptions are made?  The basic ones are that the sample we have is representative of all DMs (or possibly all DMs at Enworld, or all DMs reading this particular thread, etc.) if they were required to vote (and implicitly the assumption of no vote stuffing), and that the distribution of these proportions is normally distributed.  The latter is probably decent given the sampling size and observed proportions, and the former is laughable because, well, internet poll.

Still, taken seriously, what alternate explanations might be plausible?  It isn't necessarily that vote stuffing occurred:
1) Enworld does not attract the pro and anti people equally strongly (correlated with "old-school" vs. "new-school"?), but those who are attracted more strongly are more likely to sign up.
2) The proportions for non-voters (e.g. people such as myself who both play and DM enough not to have cast a vote in either category but might have if the questions were asked more carefully) is different for some reason, even if the overall proportion if we had to vote is basically equal.
3) Any of a bajillion other forms of self-selection related to signing up for a hobby board, and then voting on a particular poll.

So, it isn't ridiculous to think vote-stuffing occurred given the numbers, but it isn't exactly a foregone conclusion either.  It is what it is.

On topic, I prefer save-or-die to be used sparingly, without losing it entirely.  Dying like a chump sucks, but save or die can be awesome if foreshadowed or hinted at.  The threat's the thing.  Creeping in the tunnels where Medusa lurks, knowing she lurks there?  Every corner could mean death, but we must press on!  Running into her at the gas station because the wife sent you out to get some milk?  Chump death.  Your wife is also a medusa, and you forgot her sister was in town?  OK, you might have deserved it.  Demonstrating save-or-die vs. hapless NPC, just in time for the boss fight?  The fight might be like waiting for the dragon to breathe, and hoping you can make it -- totally nerve-wracking.  But springing a slow-burn kill on the PCs by surprise gives 'em time for the dread, and time to do what it takes to overcome.

But if you have to use them, hopefully even the rattiest rat-bastard DM remembers he should be screwing the PCs, and not his buddies.  Genre matters.  Verisimilitude matters.  The table matters most.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 9, 2010)

Reynard said:


> It'd be better if you actually read and responded to the actual example. Verdande didn't say a medusa jumped out of a closet and boom! killed the PCs with its gaze. he said the fighter was going toe to toe with the medusa without precautions. There's no "gotcha" -- there's a player who either doesn't understand the potential consequences, or doesn't care. In either case, they're stone.




Except the game exists outside of a single context. Sure, some DMs will give warning that the players are coming up against Medusa and they get to take precautions. But other times, a group might come up against one with no warning - and bam, by this logic, one player is out of the fight for no reason. 

The idea that if you are in a fight, and someone happens to chuck a disintegrate at you and you aren't protected against it, and this means _you messed up and deserve to die_... ok, I'll accept that might be fine for some styles of play, but certainly not as an absolute rule. 

You can set up these sort of punishments as part of a legitimate style of play, where the PCs need to have the right answers or they lose - and that can be very rewarding to figure out what they need to do and how they need to overcome each combat. But that is so incredibly dependant on the DM that if you just freely put these scenarios out there, many groups will just come away with a bad experience - they turned a corner, and turned to stone, and nothing they can do about it. 

Or, in a different style of play, it turns into a game of one-upsmanship, with players and DM each trying to have counters and counters to the counters until someone 'loses'. 

The only instant death my PCs have run into in my 4E game has been getting immersed in lava, which they've managed to do. They recently came close, when one angelic PC flew out over some lava to smite his foes... and then realized the ongoing damage was going to drop him in it on the start of his next turn. None of the other PCs could get to him in time - and so one of them chucked a hammer at him to knock him backwards through the air, knocking him out in the process... but over safe ground. 

The potential for instant death made for a tense and exciting moment, sure. 

However, would it have been served if the PCs had walked into a room of lava, and every enemy immediately tried to shove them in it, and if the PCs didn't come prepared with lots of anti-forced movement abilities, they all died? I don't particularly think so.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 9, 2010)

Chainsaw said:


> In games I've played, if you're rolling save or die, then you've already done something really, really stupid and you're getting a last chance to survive. I think of it as a gift, actually. A chance that I might be OK despite doing something idiotic. I'm sure that's not the case with everyone. I'm sure many people have suffered occasions of the mechanic being abused all to hell. Time for a new DM!




Or a new system - the problem with this outlook is that it requires that Save or Dies are both rare, and that warning of them comes well in advance. But if any high-level spellcaster might have such spells in hand, than either you can never fight spellcasters without that risk, or you have to come up with a way to shut down their spells. (Death Ward). At which point they need to come up with a way to shut down your protection (Greater Dispel Magic). At which point you need to find a way to protect your protection (Ring of Counterspells). 

At a certain point, it stops being about taking smart precautions, and instead becomes a battle for who has greater system mastery. 

I don't want Save or Dies floating around in the base rules for that reason. I'd be all for having them as optional rules with a lot of guidance for DMs on when and how to use them - but without that, there is no guarantee that they will only exist to punish unprepared PCs.

I remember a Living Greyhawk adventure where the party was investigating a cabin in the woods. They wanted to be prepared for the fight, so rather than kicking the door in, they had the rogue sneak around to a window and peer inside. 

He saw a Bodak. He died. 

Rest of the party was warned. It was a funny story in later years. But not all that fun for the player who got to sit out of the rest of the slot, who died in the very act of trying to make sure the party was safely prepared for a fight.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 9, 2010)

BryonD said:


> In the myth, if you see Medusa you turn to stone. Not even "save or die", just do it and die. That is scary. The tension exists in the prospect of facing such a terrible threat. If you meet the gaze of medusa becoming slowed does not increase tension, to me, it just reveals that there is no *simulation* present here. It proves that you are playing a tactical boardgame in which getting the story right has been completely set aside.




You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. 

I also think it is ridiculous overexaggeration to say that a Medusa's gaze that turns you to stone over 18 seconds instead of in 6 seconds means "the story has been completely set aside" for a "tactical boardgame". 

Feel free to prefer the No Save or Save or Die, but you can probably offer your point without quite as much emphasis on how everyone else is 'doing it wrong.' 

That said, I do understand your point. Less dangerous effects can feel like a less important, less mythic battle. 

The problem is... in these big myths, how many fights are the heroes in? Over the course of everything they do... we'll hear about maybe a dozen battles, if that? A handful of famous monsters they fight or obstacles they overcome? 

Perseus went and forced some crones to tell him where to find some famous weapons were. He collected some cool items and had the gods themselves give him awesome magic stuff. He found the Gorgons sleeping, snuck up and struck off Medusa's head, and then invisibly fled from the other ones. Doesn't sound like all that epic a career to me. A fantastic story and myth, but not the stuff that makes for a good game. 

D&D just doesn't _work _on that scale. The game is just built around a larger framework than one or two mythic quests with one or two encounters. And while you can include those elements or pattern things after them, if every other fight runs the risk of the hero just dying, then the hero will accomplish one or two awesome things and then die and have someone else mysteriously step into his place in the grand picture of things. 

Or get brought back from the dead, which can make for an awesome journey the first time, and get pretty mundane every other time after that. 

Look, there is absolutely room for Save or Die in certain games and certain styles of play, and I'm not begrudging anyone the right to prefer it. But I don't think the comparisons to mythic stories really works - they operate on a completely different scale than the assumptions of a D&D game, and while you can pattern the occasionally really cool one-shot after that scenario, you can't make the assumption that it should be part of the default game.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 9, 2010)

It is a constant source of amazement for me that no one *EVER* seems to make their saves.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 9, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Look, there is absolutely room for Save or Die in certain games and certain styles of play, and I'm not begrudging anyone the right to prefer it. But I don't think the comparisons to mythic stories really works - they operate on a completely different scale than the assumptions of a D&D game, and while you can pattern the occasionally really cool one-shot after that scenario, _*you can't make the assumption that it should be part of the default game*_.



Eh?  I _was_ an assumption of the default game for 3 editions and 30 years before now.  

We all did just fine, either adjusting it or ignoring it as needed.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 9, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> As for save or dies, kill them. Get rid of them. The 4e mechanic is drastically better and introduces not just more fun but more dread, and I've adopted it to my non-4e  games. D&D has always grappled with horror and how to implement it, and here's a big major awesome tip to DMs (Seriously you'll thank me for this, it's the best advice for horror you'll see about the game) - horror is not "Hah hah you failed your save, you died." That's not scary. It's annoying. It's irritating. It's stupid. It's frustrating. It's not scary.
> 
> Scary is "You're body is slowly solidifying into stone; at this rate, you won't be going much longer." And then in the next round, "You feel your arms and legs creak and slow, and cracks begin to fade away on your now grey skin as it spreads even farther." And then in the next round, "You kill the medusa, and the march of petrification across your body begins to reverse. You've survived."
> 
> That's awesome, dramatic, and scary as hell. It's the difference between a slow building tense scariness, and some guy in a closet jumping out and yelling "Boogity boogity boo!" In the first example, when are you going to be scared? There's no moment of fear. Just "Welp, you're gone." In the second example, there's lots of time to be afraid. A slow death is drastically scarier then a sudden one.




I first saw this mechanism appear in a WotC product pre-4e; it was in one of the "arcane supplements" (I forget which), and a number of the spells were ones which took a number of rounds to complete their effect. One was a druid spell, and if you failed your save it started turning you to stone, and after IIRC 3 rounds you were rock. That gave 3r worth of opportunities for other participants to take action to rescue you from the effect before it finally happened.

I remember thinking at the time that it was a great solution to the 'save or die' scenario.

The other thing which I believe was quite a common houserule (perhaps based on d20 moderns fail of a massive damage save rule?) was that 'save or die' became 'save or dying' - knocked to -1hp and starts dying process. Again, something that has the dramatic potential for other party members to leap into action to keep them alive and/or bring them back into the fight.

Regards,


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 9, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> Eh? I _was_ an assumption of the default game for 3 editions and 30 years before now.
> 
> We all did just fine, either adjusting it or ignoring it as needed.




? Are you sure? The assumption I'm referring to is not the existence of Save or Die, but the idea that a game plays out like Perseus's tale. Are you telling me that every character you had for thirty years went and had 2-3 epic encounters and then immediately retired? 

Or was the assumption that these characters would be around for months or years of play, level up many times, and have many, many encounters over the course of their lifespan? 

That's the default I'm talking about, and the one at odds with trying to make the game perfectly mirror specific myths from history.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 9, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> ? Are you sure? The assumption I'm referring to is not the existence of Save or Die, but the idea that a game plays out like Perseus's tale. Are you telling me that every character you had for thirty years went and had 2-3 epic encounters and then immediately retired?
> 
> Or was the assumption that these characters would be around for months or years of play, level up many times, and have many, many encounters over the course of their lifespan?
> 
> That's the default I'm talking about, and the one at odds with trying to make the game perfectly mirror specific myths from history.



Ah, I woefully misunderstood your point!  Apologies!

And I largely agree, for the same reason many others do: a game is not a myth, though we all hope it reads like one when the campaign is done. 

Many characters, though, _do_ only have a handful of epic encounters... and a whole mess of little encounters that don't live on in song.  In other words, _both_ of the assumptions you put forward are valid; they're not mutually exclusive. Perseus surely had many, many encounters that didn't make it to "legendary" status: the bandits slain, the bar brawls, the wild animal hunts.  But just because we don't hear about those things doesn't mean they didn't happen.  He had to earn his XP somehow!


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 9, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> Eh?  I _was_ an assumption of the default game for 3 editions and 30 years before now.
> 
> We all did just fine, either adjusting it or ignoring it as needed.



Just because it was doesn't mean it should have been.  I can think of plenty of examples from the history of medicine (like bleeding) where things were done that should not have been.  And THAC0 was part of the game for many years - I don't miss it in the slightest.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Aug 9, 2010)

The problem with removing save or dies is it makes any dm who wants to use them look like an ass.  If they are in the game by default, removing them is a hell of a lot easier than adding them.  WTF?  save or die?  that's not in the rules, killer dm!


----------



## Mallus (Aug 9, 2010)

I'm primarily a DM and I vote: nay.

Save-or-die effects are certainly _one_ way to create tension. But they're equally certainly not the _only_ way to do it, and I find the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 9, 2010)

Reynard said:


> It is a constant source of amazement for me that no one *EVER* seems to make their saves.




Party of 5 PC's meets a creature like a medusa or a bodak that forces save or die on the group.  Fight lasts four rounds.  That's twenty saving throws.  Odds say that someone is going to roll a one (and that's assuming that you only fail on a one) and dies.

It's not that no one ever makes their save.  It's that no one ever makes ALL their saves.



			
				JRRNeikalot said:
			
		

> The problem with removing save or dies is it makes any dm who wants to use them look like an ass. If they are in the game by default, removing them is a hell of a lot easier than adding them. WTF? save or die? that's not in the rules, killer dm!




If using them was groovy, then why would the DM look like an ass?  Could it possibly be that the players have a point?  That SoD isn't actually all that scary, it's just an instant death sentence, for the reasons outlined above?

Why not just have a monster that rolls randomly through the party and kills one PC before the end of the encounter?  After all, it's pretty much the same thing.  Is it a well designed monster?

I think that's the entire point in a nutshell.  SoD isn't well designed.  It's entirely random.  Poof, Bob, your character dies in this encounter.  No, there's nothing you can do about it because you didn't have the Automatic Immunity Counter.  If you had the AIC, then this encouter would be a laughable joke.  But, you don't, so, sorry, you die.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 9, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> The idea that if you are in a fight, and someone happens to chuck a disintegrate at you and you aren't protected against it, and this means _you messed up and deserve to die_... ok, I'll accept that might be fine for some styles of play, but certainly not as an absolute rule.




To quote Clint Eastwood in _*Unforgiven*_, “Deserve’s got nothing to do with it." and "We all have it coming, kid." 

From _*The Outlaw Josey Wales*_, Clint gives us some more advice:

"Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is."

Because sometimes you can't shoot all those men down before they shoot you, you have to consider the Missouri boat ride as an alternative. 

& most importantly, "To hell with them fellas. Buzzards gotta eat, same as worms."


RC


----------



## Reynard (Aug 9, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Party of 5 PC's meets a creature like a medusa or a bodak that forces save or die on the group.  Fight lasts four rounds.  That's twenty saving throws.  Odds say that someone is going to roll a one (and that's assuming that you only fail on a one) and dies.
> 
> It's not that no one ever makes their save.  It's that no one ever makes ALL their saves.




Again, you're ignoring all the possible mitigating actins that PCs can take (frex, the cleric casts darkness to protect everyone else from gaze attacks, or whatever). And what makes SoD andthe like valuable is how it motivates actions and causes sudden shifts in tactics. This isn't to say that other kinds of abilities don't also inform action, but the SoD is very particular, and then the exact type is more particlar (gaze attacks versus poison stings versus AoE doom).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 9, 2010)

In the story of Perseus and the Medusa, slaying the Medusa was the means to an end.  Perseus made use of the Save or Die effect to defeat opponents that he could not otherwise vanquish.

Of course, this discussion is like many others we've had in the past, and it boils down to this (IMHO):  Are these things features of the world your game takes place in, or are they features of a story you are creating/telling?  If they are features of the world, they can be used like any other features.  For instance, the PCs who cannot beat Monster X can lure it into Death Trap Y.  Or they might just try to get the head of a medusa in a world where the petrifying gaze persists for some time after death.

I also note a few other things:

(1)  Being stuck on the sidelines (dead, paralyzed, held, whatever) while an encounter plays out sucks in direct proportion to how long it takes to play out an encounter.  When your average combat strays (far) over the 30-minute range, this becomes far less attractive.

(2)  Dying in role-playing heavy games is no better or worse than dying in role-playing light campaigns.  Sooner or later, most every character passes away.  Because of death, because a new campaign starts, or whatever.  No one's story lasts forever.  That doesn't make it any less a story, or any less interesting.  "Call no man happy until he is dead" -- you cannot know the whole story of a character until that story is ended.

(3)  Many of the people who don't advocate Save or Die also don't advocate character death.  Make of that what you will, but to me it indicates that SoD isn't the problem for them....D is.  With or without a S first.

(4)  Dying sucks in direct proportion to how long it takes to get a new character ready/into the game.  When this takes on average (far) over 30 minutes, this becomes far less attractive.


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 9, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> The problem with removing save or dies is it makes any dm who wants to use them look like an ass. If they are in the game by default, removing them is a hell of a lot easier than adding them. WTF? save or die? that's not in the rules, killer dm!




Not remotely. Hopefully the players know what game they are playing prior to coming to the table. I would say that a DM running a 4E game and slipping them in without telling the players is an ass, but not someone who advertises a BD&D or AD&D game then runs it per the rules.


----------



## Ainamacar (Aug 9, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> I first saw this mechanism appear in a WotC product pre-4e; it was in one of the "arcane supplements" (I forget which), and a number of the spells were ones which took a number of rounds to complete their effect. One was a druid spell, and if you failed your save it started turning you to stone, and after IIRC 3 rounds you were rock. That gave 3r worth of opportunities for other participants to take action to rescue you from the effect before it finally happened.
> 
> I remember thinking at the time that it was a great solution to the 'save or die' scenario.




That would be Call of Stone from the 3.5 PHB2, and I had the same reaction you did.  It really affected how I wrote homebrew spells afterward.  The character's speed drops 10 feet per round each time it misses a fort save.  At speed 0 it turns to stone.  If it misses 4 saves total before the effect ends, the petrification is permanent.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Aug 9, 2010)

Hussar said:


> If using them was groovy, then why would the DM look like an ass?  Could it possibly be that the players have a point?  That SoD isn't actually all that scary, it's just an instant death sentence, for the reasons outlined above?




Removing them from the rules pretty much removes the option from the game, period.  Having them in the rules lets the dm use them or not as he chooses.  It's absolutely ok for a game not to use save or dies.  It's absolutely fine for a game to use them, as well.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 9, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Of course, this discussion is like many others we've had in the past, and it boils down to this (IMHO):  Are these things features of the world your game takes place in, or are they features of a story you are creating/telling?



Exactly right.



> (1)  Being stuck on the sidelines (dead, paralyzed, held, whatever) while an encounter plays out sucks in direct proportion to how long it takes to play out an encounter.  When your average combat strays (far) over the 30-minute range, this becomes far less attractive.



This can certainly be true.    But another important factor is how much is the player's enjoyment limited to the character's activity.


> (2)  Dying in role-playing heavy games is no better or worse than dying in role-playing light campaigns.  Sooner or later, most every character passes away.  Because of death, because a new campaign starts, or whatever.  No one's story lasts forever.  That doesn't make it any less a story, or any less interesting.  "Call no man happy until he is dead" -- you cannot know the whole story of a character until that story is ended.



I think that, for some games, it can be awesome to die a dramtic, heroic death, and for some games death is nothing but "losing".  I think that heavy RP games are much more likely to be in the firts group, and RP light games are much mor elikely to be in the second group.  But there are most certainly expections both ways.



> (3)  Many of the people who don't advocate Save or Die also don't advocate character death.  Make of that what you will, but to me it indicates that SoD isn't the problem for them....D is.  With or without a S first.



Very true.  To me, you can never have victory over a threat you cower from facing.



> (4)  Dying sucks in direct proportion to how long it takes to get a new character ready/into the game.  When this takes on average (far) over 30 minutes, this becomes far less attractive.



Yea, I guess that makes sense.  Of course, if imagining and bringing a new character "to life" is part of the fun, then that time is zero.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 9, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Party of 5 PC's meets a creature like a medusa or a bodak that forces save or die on the group.  Fight lasts four rounds.  That's twenty saving throws.  Odds say that someone is going to roll a one (and that's assuming that you only fail on a one) and dies.
> 
> It's not that no one ever makes their save.  It's that no one ever makes ALL their saves.



So don't fight them in a way that requires a saving throw.  Stay out of range. Or avoid, run, or parlay....

Back to Perseus:  He didn't survive against Medusa because he made his saving throw.  He survived because he never had to make the saving throw roll in the first place.


> I think that's the entire point in a nutshell.  SoD isn't well designed.  It's entirely random.



It's not entirely random in the greater context of the game.  Players have a say in what happens to their players, too, and IME are quite adept at keeping PCs alive against the odds.  They have preparations, tactics, clues, and so on.  

I'll grant that a DM of a Toleinesque campaign who says "You round the corner and see a medusa, so make your saves" could be being something of an ass.  But in the Grotto of Gygaxian Gotchas, a lurking medusa is probably the norm, and the PCs should have a way to deal with it.  

In other words, the "correct" use of SoDs depends on the campaign.  It's not really a question of how well designed SoD is.  Rather, it's a question of how well designed the SoD _encounter_ is, and the player expectations underlying it.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 9, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I think that, for some games, it can be awesome to die a dramtic, heroic death, and for some games death is nothing but "losing". I think that heavy RP games are much more likely to be in the firts group, and RP light games are much mor elikely to be in the second group. But there are most certainly expections both ways.




I don't know, I think several big assumptions are being made here. I've seen just as much of a view point from the opposite direction - a heavy RP game shies away from Save or Dies that can feel like a cheap, meaningless death (as opposed to one that happens at a truly dramatic moment in the plot), while an RP light game that is about the 'competition' between player and DM can thrive on these sort of threats. 

Note, I'm not saying these are the _only _reasons some games are for or against Save or Die effects. But I think it is simply wrong to try and make the claim that "'Save or Die' effects are favored by roleplaying, but not by RP-light gamers that don't like dying." Both your statement here, and RC's statement that people who don't like Save or Die just don't like dying at all, seem to be attempts to change the context of these discussion, and portray a certain kind of crowd (non-RPers, players that don't like to 'lose', etc) as your opposition.

I don't think that is true. We've seen, in fact, several people in the thread specific state that they are opposed to SoD effects because they can be _lacking_ - for them - in dramatic tension. 

Now, I'm not saying they are wrong and you are right, or they are right and you are wrong. The key is, both can be true. But they get to decide their reasons for their preferences... not you. 

But you and RC both seem firmly in the Save or Die camp while simultaneously trying to offer up the 'reasons' the other side opposes such things. And... I don't really think you guys get to do that. I don't think you guys are doing so intentionally, and there are some genuinely good points that are being made here (about downtime itself factoring into the picture), but it does seem clear there is a level of bias in how you view this - that Save or Die is ok with proper gamers who are about Roleplaying and the experience, and those who don't like it are the gamers who are only focused on 'winning' and 'losing'. 

And I don't think that is fair conclusion to reach, or even particularly supported by the posts we've seen thus far in the thread itself.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 9, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> So don't fight them in a way that requires a saving throw.  Stay out of range. Or avoid, run, or parlay....




That requires foreknowledge of what ways don't require the saving throw.   That's great, if you have it, but the general case isn't that the players know beforehand the details of everything a given opponent can do, is it?


----------



## Treebore (Aug 9, 2010)

Ranes said:


> I haven't voted, because there isn't an option for me. As a DM and a player, I want save or die.
> 
> As a player, I don't feel bad when one of my characters dies. As a DM, I see plenty of ways of bringing a character back, if the players really want that to happen. A bit of downtime in the game while you wait for a character to be brought back from the dead or for the opportunity to introduce a new one? Oh, the humanity!




Pretty much a ditto here. If you can't suffer the ultimate failure in a single moment like you can in real life, what's the point of playing in rubberized rooms like current RPG's build? Give me challenges, give me adrenaline rush's, give me "save or die"!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 9, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> But you and RC both seem firmly in the Save or Die camp while simultaneously trying to offer up the 'reasons' the other side opposes such things. And... I don't really think you guys get to do that.




Hmmmm.

Well, it is merely observation that a number of people in the anti-SoD camp have, in the past, also advocated anti-D.

It is merely observation that there is a strong correlation between anit-SoD and "game as narrative".

It is also merely observation that certain factors are going to play into the reasons others have given.  If you don't want to sit out (as others have said), then factors that make you sit out longer are unlikely to make you more accepting of SoD.

Then, of course, there is the fact that 2e advocated that the DM fudge out the effects of PC deaths, and that there was a point at which I followed the 2e advice.  I know why I thought it made sense then.  I also know why I eventually rejected it.  I have a pretty strong understanding of why I was anti-SoD at one point, and why I changed my mind.

So, sure, I think I am qualified to *speculate*.  Just as you seem to feel qualified to *speculate* about why I am writing what I am writing.  And, yes, I do intentionally do that.  Speculation as to the motives of other people is pretty normal, and is absolutely essential if you have any desire whatsoever to understand the behaviour of other people.

OTOH, I have no idea where you are getting "Save or Die is ok with proper gamers who are about Roleplaying and the experience, and those who don't like it are the gamers who are only focused on 'winning' and 'losing'."

AFAICT, that is a conclusion that you have reached alone, and is not even particularly supported by the posts you are responding to.


RC


----------



## malraux (Aug 9, 2010)

FWIW, even though I'm so against SoD (or other variants of save or sit out the next few hours) that I'll walk out of the game never to return, I have no problem with dying in general.  If the dice turn against me, the dice have turned against me.  If my strategy is wrong, I deserve the beating.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 9, 2010)

malraux said:


> FWIW, even though I'm so against SoD (or other variants of save or sit out the next few hours) that I'll walk out of the game never to return, I have no problem with dying in general.  If the dice turn against me, the dice have turned against me.  If my strategy is wrong, I deserve the beating.




Which is fine.  Good, even.  You shouldn't waste time with games you don't enjoy.

(1) Speculation about general motives potentially has very limited value when determining the motives of any given individual.  You can describe a trend, to which various individuals fall to only a limited degree.  This doesn't mean that anyone falls fully within the trend; merely that there is a degree to which differing parts of that trend are shared by different individuals.

Thus, it is fair to say "Many people like X because of qualities A, B, and C," without it also being true that all of those people -- or even the majority -- like _*all*_ of those traits.

(2)  Just to be clear, "that Save or Die is ok with proper gamers who are about Roleplaying and the experience, and those who don't like it are the gamers who are only focused on 'winning' and 'losing'." is, AFAICT, a unique statement to MrMyth.

Saying, as I did, that "Dying in role-playing heavy games is no better or worse than dying in role-playing light campaigns" is hardly the same as saying "Save or Die is ok with proper gamers who are about Roleplaying and the experience".  There is barely a relationship between the two statements.  And, if there is, mine is a direct contradiction of MrMyth's.


RC


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 9, 2010)

Umbran said:


> That requires foreknowledge of what ways don't require the saving throw.   That's great, if you have it, but the general case isn't that the players know beforehand the details of everything a given opponent can do, is it?



I agree that PCs generally don't have a lot of knowledge.  But distance+cover+ready_to_run really is a good rule of thumb for any initial encounter (Heck, that's a good rule for social encounters, too, or even much of real life  ).  

Maybe it's silly of me when I DM, but I tend to assume PCs (and monsters!) err on the side of caution when facing an unknown, whether or not the world is full of old-school SoDs, 4e-esque SSSoDs, or just KOs.  

And honestly, I believe most good encounters won't leave the PCs completely unknowledgeable or powerless, anyway.  There's always a hint or an out.  Despite this, the PCs _will_ sometimes be ambushed, or overlook something, or guess wrong.  At that point it boils down to game expectations and the trust that ought to exist between the players and DM.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 9, 2010)

malraux said:


> FWIW, even though I'm so against SoD (or other variants of save or sit out the next few hours) that I'll walk out of the game never to return, I have no problem with dying in general.  If the dice turn against me, the dice have turned against me.  If my strategy is wrong, I deserve the beating.



Why would you have gone into a game with SoDs in the first place if they're a gamebreaker for you?  If you didn't know they were there or weren't expecting them, that tells me there was a huge breakdown in communication between the DM and players.  

Frankly, that's what discussions like these are _really_ about:  making sure everyone at the table has non-conflicting expectations for the game.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 9, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> I agree that PCs generally don't have a lot of knowledge.  But distance+cover+ready_to_run really is a good rule of thumb for any initial encounter (Heck, that's a good rule for social encounters, too, or even much of real life  ).




Let's consider that for, say, a typical dungeon:  Distance and cover are limited by dungeon geometry.  If you're having the encounter at all, you've pretty much got to enter the room in which the critter lives.  Ready to run?  Well, that'll save everyone *after* the first one dies failing the save.

As for applying that to social encounters... I can only imagine using that in your typical dance club.  Peering around doors, hiding behind pillars, sneaking up on the bartender in case he tosses a fireball at you just before you order a light beer.  I suppose that might be fun for you, but I don't think you'll get many dates out of it.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Aug 9, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> So don't fight them in a way that requires a saving throw.  Stay out of range. Or avoid, run, or parlay....
> 
> Back to Perseus:  He didn't survive against Medusa because he made his saving throw.  He survived because he never had to make the saving throw roll in the first place.
> It's not entirely random in the greater context of the game.  Players have a say in what happens to their players, too, and IME are quite adept at keeping PCs alive against the odds.  They have preparations, tactics, clues, and so on.
> ...




So, in the Dreaded D&D Dungeon you should know better than to touch anything, because experience teaches you to expect 0.37 deadly traps per room and your 1st level thief has only a 10% chance to detect/disarm any trap? The result is more like paranoia than suspense.

The Perseus/Medusa example doesn't work as an analogy, imho. As far as I know the story, Pallas Athene took action, gave Perseus the valuable shield and instructed him. That's not what I'd call "character ingenuity", it's railroading with the help of a powerful NPC. 

I think we all want some method to increase suspense apart from the very lenient D&D system of whittling away HPs.

The SoD method works if the players know the rules governing the effect (petrification by looking at the monster, InstaDeath by a spell) and get hints about the threat so they can prepare their characters for it. Any error they make may result in character death(s).

This isn't the sort of suspense I like, if only because of the meta-game component: the players are forced to work on a meta-game level, they are playing some Dungeon Chess against the GM, not a roleplaying game.

For me, some system like the 4e Medusa works much better. As soon as one character falls victim to the monster's gaze, the pressure on the other characters - and thus the players - mount as they not only have to kill, chase away, or somehow get rid of the creature, they also have to save their comrade by quickly applying some effect to her.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 9, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Let's consider that for, say, a typical dungeon:  Distance and cover are limited by dungeon geometry.  If you're having the encounter at all, you've pretty much got to enter the room in which the critter lives.  Ready to run?  Well, that'll save everyone *after* the first one dies failing the save.




I'm a little confused. There's a room, which implies a door, or at least a portal of some sort, possibly with a hallway leading up to said portal. Why are the PCs blundering through the door and into the room without listening, checking from recent tracks and otherwise engaging in a little reconnoiter?

I don't mean to sound snarky, but it seems to me that your arguments against SoD rely quite heavily upon a playstyle that ignores the fact that they exist. of course they won't work or turn the game "unfun" if they have an impact on play but no one recognizes it and responds accordingly.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Aug 9, 2010)

Reynard said:


> I'm a little confused. There's a room, which implies a door, or at least a portal of some sort, possibly with a hallway leading up to said portal. Why are the PCs blundering through the door and into the room without listening, checking from recent tracks and otherwise engaging in a little reconnoiter?




Confused? So am I. Do you guarantee your players that their characters *will* hear sounds they can recognize as coming from a medusa? How can they interpret the sketchy tracks on the dungeon floor as being made by a basilisk?



Reynard said:


> I don't mean to sound snarky, but it seems to me that your arguments against SoD rely quite heavily upon a playstyle that ignores the fact that they exist. of course they won't work or turn the game "unfun" if they have an impact on play but no one recognizes it and responds accordingly.




Without any attempt at snarkiness as well: if I'd run my game in such a way, I'd feel like training my players like some kind of Pavlov's dogs. 

Ah, isn't it great that we roleplayers are such a diverse bunch? And isn't it great that ENWorld provides us with such a fantastic stage to perform our arguments on?


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 9, 2010)

Umbran said:


> As for applying that to social encounters... I can only imagine using that in your typical dance club.  Peering around doors, hiding behind pillars, sneaking up on the bartender in case he tosses a fireball at you just before you order a light beer.  I suppose that might be fun for you, but I don't think you'll get many dates out of it.



Light beer? No need to be insulting.  

_Metaphorical_ distance and cover is what I was referring to.  Sorry, I realize that wasn't clear.  Idle chit chat, white lies, guarding info, reading the other conversants, stuff like that.  And if all else fails, _no one_ is left standing when I, Theo R. Cwithin, don the white leisure suit and hit the disco dance floor!


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 9, 2010)

Jan van Leyden said:


> The Perseus/Medusa example doesn't work as an analogy, imho. As far as I know the story, Pallas Athene took action, gave Perseus the valuable shield and instructed him. That's not what I'd call "character ingenuity", it's railroading with the help of a powerful NPC.



I agree that the myth doesn't map perfectly to a game, but it could be envisioned as having played out as one-- and I'm quite certain someone somewhere actually has played it out.  What you're calling a railroad might actually have resulted in-game from a lot of research, questing, bargaining, or the like.


> For me, some system like the 4e Medusa works much better. As soon as one character falls victim to the monster's gaze, the pressure on the other characters - and thus the players - mount as they not only have to kill, chase away, or somehow get rid of the creature, they also have to save their comrade by quickly applying some effect to her.



I actually also agree on this as well.  

Like I said upthread, the 4e-style effects with several chances to mitigate aren't necessarily incompatible with save-or-die.  In fact, I've used 4e save-or-save-or-save-or-die with 3.5 basilisks (based on some article I read).  The 4e SSSoD effects don't have to _replace_ SoD effects; they just have different applications.  

To continue beating the dead horse: there are different ways to envision the medusa.  In one campaign, they're a frightening but surmountable monster (SSSoD).  In the Great Grotto of Gygaxian Gotchas, a medusa is old-school dangerous, along with everything else in the dungeon (SoD).  In another campaign the medusae are a full-blown race, with relatively weak young (SSSSSoD) and more powerful elders (SoD). And in a mythic Greece campaign there is only Medusa the Gorgon (maybe a high DC SoD, or maybe SSSoD, depending).

The only complete answer to the poll is "What are the players' expectations of the campaign?"  The answer to that question tells you if SoDs are acceptable or not.  And I'd even wager that some gamers swing both ways now and then.


----------



## coyote6 (Aug 9, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> From _*The Outlaw Josey Wales*_, Clint gives us some more advice:
> 
> "Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is."
> 
> ...




Of course, if the Outlaw Josey Wales were a D&D character, he'd probably not be 1st or 2nd level, so he'd have to empty his six shooter into the average monster before he'd have a chance at killing it . . .

Which is why I can't quite like d20 Modern; gimme GURPS or SW or SR or something like that, please. Let everyone be vulnerable to the gun (or sword, or spell).

Ironically, though, I'm not terribly fond of "save or die" spells in D&D for some reason. 

OTOH, if you add in action/hero/whatever points -- a resource that every PC has & can use to mitigate the chance of D -- I'm much more accepting. 

(Magic items and spells to mitigate SoD don't do it for me -- the one leads to the dread Christmas Tree effect, and the other just makes the spellcasters more awesome than the non-spellcasters.)


----------



## Kingreaper (Aug 9, 2010)

The thing with Save or Dies to me is that every argument in favour of them seems like a situation where it should be "just die"
Which I'm fine with.

Save or die is where I have the problem. If I look at a medusa, and the medusa is meant to be full on greek-myth medusa: I die. I don't "Save or die" I die.

Save or die seems to be used as a way of having things that should be "just die"; and having them not be.
But making the save is pure chance. So, X% of the time they are still "just die".

If you want to use "just die" effects; use "just die" effects. If you don't want "just die" effects: why are you using "save-or-die"? When the die comes into effect, by random chance, you've got a "just die"


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 10, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> ... distance+cover+ready_to_run really is a good rule of thumb for any initial encounter (Heck, that's a good rule for social encounters, too, or even much of real life  ). ...




I think that's the same strategy the French use...


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Aug 10, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Not remotely. Hopefully the players know what game they are playing prior to coming to the table. I would say that a DM running a 4E game and slipping them in without telling the players is an ass, but not someone who advertises a BD&D or AD&D game then runs it per the rules.




You lost me there.  That's exactly what I was getting at.  A dm adding save or die effects into a game which by default does not have them, is going to find it a hard sell.  Removing such effects from a game that does have them, however, probably won't piss off players nearly as much.  The former can be seen as antagonistic, the latter, generous.


----------



## Kingreaper (Aug 10, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> You lost me there.  That's exactly what I was getting at.  A dm adding save or die effects into a game which by default does not have them, is going to find it a hard sell.  Removing such effects from a game that does have them, however, probably won't piss off players nearly as much.  The former can be seen as antagonistic, the latter, generous.



If players in general don't want save or die effects (as you're suggesting) wouldn't it make sense not to have save or die effects in a game that's trying to get a big audience?


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 10, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> Light beer? No need to be insulting.
> 
> _Metaphorical_ distance and cover is what I was referring to. Sorry, I realize that wasn't clear. Idle chit chat, white lies, guarding info, reading the other conversants, stuff like that. And if all else fails, _no one_ is left standing when I, Theo R. Cwithin, don the white leisure suit and hit the disco dance floor!




That is soooo worth some XP...I just have to spread some around yet (Damn!)


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Aug 10, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> If players in general don't want save or die effects (as you're suggesting) wouldn't it make sense not to have save or die effects in a game that's trying to get a big audience?




Players don't want their characters to die either.  Should that be removed?  They don't particularly like getting hit, remove that as well?


----------



## Kingreaper (Aug 10, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Players don't want their characters to die either.  Should that be removed?  They don't particularly like getting hit, remove that as well?



This isn't really analogous. There's a very big difference.

Most of my players like the possibility of character-death. They don't like the actual instance of it, but they like the possibility. It makes the survival so much more interesting.

All of my players (and going by your statements, most of your players too) don't like the idea of save-or-die. They don't like the possibility existing at all.

That's the difference. Get it now?


----------



## radmod (Aug 10, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Because heroic stories are only told about the heroes who did heroic things...not those that died before they could do anything heroic, if you follow me.
> 
> You're looking at it backwards. I'd say that heroes are successful most of the time because those who are successful most of the time are heroes. Bad things do happen to heroes, but typically they are things the hero overcomes, not typically being turned to stone in a cave and never being seen again.
> 
> Again, stories are not games.




I know I'm way behind on this thread, but ...
According to reliable sources (PhDs in Classical History and Mythology + my mailman), a Hero is, and always was a Hero. In the Medusa example, if he hadn't gotten the shield, he would've won another way.

I always tell my Heroes, that they are Heroes (in the classical sense: larger than life). How powerful (respected, honored, etc.) of a Hero is dependent on them.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Aug 10, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> > All of my players (and going by your statements, most of your players too) don't like the idea of save-or-die. They don't like the possibility existing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Kingreaper (Aug 10, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Actually all of my players like the fact that save or dies exist, though they might dislike losing a character to one.



Then why would they prefer to have it removed from a system than have it added to a system?



> No.



Are you being deliberately obtuse?

When I play FPS games, I don't like getting hit.
I like the possibility of being hit (otherwise I'd find a god-mode cheat).

When I play D&D I don't like dying.
I like the possibility of dying (otherwise I'd play a game without it)

When I play FPS games, I don't like the controls to suddenly reverse
I don't like the possibility of the controls suddenly reversing.
So, I don't play games where that is a possibility.

When I play D&D, I don't like save or die spells being used.
I don't like the possibility of save or die spells being used.
So I don't play games where they are a possibility.


Do you understand the difference between wanting something to happen in the moment, and wanting it to be possible?


----------



## Henry (Aug 10, 2010)

For me, I've never seen save-or-die as suspenseful - it's more like crap-shooting to me. At least with SS-or-D or SSS-or-D it's like making someone watch as you feed them through the meatgrinder  - more of a sense of dread as you're failing two or three rolls in a row to get screwed.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 10, 2010)

Dying to a SoD nine times out of ten was something you couldn't have avoided, regardless of what many people here claim.  Or shall I again quote 3.5 which _explicitly_ states that you cannot identify a medusa until it's making you roll saving throws?

Character death isn't the problem.  When a character dies in an exciting, dramatic manner (and this is the most important part) that they in part choose, be it willingly or unwillingly, character death is a good thing.

"The wizard casts finger of death.  Welp, you died."

Not a good thing.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 10, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> "The wizard casts finger of death.  Welp, you died."
> 
> Not a good thing.



Someone didn't do their research to discover what spells were in that enemy wizard's spellbook? Bah! They had it coming.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 10, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Or shall I again quote 3.5 which _explicitly_ states that you cannot identify a medusa until it's making you roll saving throws?



Only if you also explicitly quote the bits about how it conceals its face and uses seduction or deception to draw a PC to within range before whipping off her mask and saying "gotcha!"  No way do I want my bard, Wannabe Casanova, to get off easy with lots of saves because he failed to recognize the danger when the DM gave him the chance.

Seriously, SoD encounters are absolutely not certain death encounters if played interestingly-- at least that's how I'm accustomed to thinking about it.  Almost never have I as a player just unexpectedly stumbled into an SoD, and I don't think I've just sprung one on a player since I was a 12 year old.  Certainly not "nine times out of ten".


----------



## BryonD (Aug 10, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> Save or die is where I have the problem. If I look at a medusa, and the medusa is meant to be full on greek-myth medusa: I die. I don't "Save or die" I die.



I'd really prefer a Will Save to control the urge to glance.

But, regardless, in situations of this type I always describe a "save" as having avoided ever meeting the gaze.  If you see Medusa in my game, you turn to stone.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 10, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Dying to a SoD nine times out of ten was something you couldn't have avoided, regardless of what many people here claim.  Or shall I again quote 3.5 which _explicitly_ states that you cannot identify a medusa until it's making you roll saving throws?



If you are identifying a medusa by inspection, you have already screwed up.

Funny thing is, in the original tellings of the story, way back in the day, it was even more scary.  There was only one Medusa.  And, anyone who had ever seen her was stone.  So NO ONE knew what she looked like.  You did not know that there was a snake-haired woman over there to avoid.  You just knew SOMETHING over there would turn you to stone with a glance.  

If a medusa is the random monster in room 14d on level 6 of the Black Dungeon of Dave, then yeah, that is anticlimatic and no fun.  But, as far as I see it, that isn't a story or even hardly a narrative.  



> Character death isn't the problem.  When a character dies in an exciting, dramatic manner (and this is the most important part) that they in part choose, be it willingly or unwillingly, character death is a good thing.
> 
> "The wizard casts finger of death.  Welp, you died."
> 
> Not a good thing.



Again, if you pull it completely out of any remote context, then you have removed every reason for playing in the first place, as far as I am concerned.

I've never played in a *good* game in which there were wizards throwing semi-random finger of death spells at PCs around every corner.  

In my games, if you go after a wizard with the potential to cast finger of death, then you better be ready to deal with whatever it is he may be casting.  It may be FoD.  It may be something completely different and just as bad.

But that is what heroes do.

Defeating the Finger of Death wizard is glorious.
Getting killed by the FoD wizard can also be glorious, and memorable and fun.
Defeating the Finger of Booboo wizard is lame.  Getting defeated by the FoBB wizard is pathetic.

You can't overcome a challenge if you cower from the challenge.

But, tastes CLEARLY differ.  If you want to fight marginally contextualized battles against a string of random baddies and be reasonably assured that pure statistics won't kill you, then SoD is a horrible element from a gamist point of view.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 10, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Players don't want their characters to die either.  Should that be removed?  They don't particularly like getting hit, remove that as well?




True, no one wants their character to die.  But, it's a far, far cry from "I don't want my character to die in a totally arbitrary way that I have no control over" and "I don't want my character to get smooshed by repeated hits from trolls."

Everyone keeps focusing on the medusa.  but, in AD&D, there are a whole host of creatures that force save or die.  Many of which are not things you can automatically prepare for.  Snakes and spiders come to mind right away.  It's not unreasonable for a PC to be surprised by either one - not all spiders spin webs and snakes are kinda known for that whole surprise ambush thing.

I lost far more PC's to snakes and spiders than combat damage in AD&D.

It's not about adventuring with rubber rooms.  It's that it's entirely arbitrary.  Either you have the counter, or someone dies.  Listen at doors?  Sure, I hear a woman talking.  I should automatically assume medusa?  Wow, metagame much?  I see small birdlike tracks.  I should automatically presume cockatrice?  Depending on the track roll (and depending on the edition - after all, without a ranger, I cannot detect tracks AT ALL in AD&D) how do I tell the difference between cockatrice and kobold tracks?

Never minding why there are tracks being left on stone floors, but, hey, we'll ignore that for a minute.

Or a banshee?  In Land Beyond the Magic Mirror, there is a banshee in one location.  There are no clues that she is there.  None.  You walk in and whammo, instant death saves.  In one of the Dragonlance modules (the exact number escapes me at the moment) banshees are a random encounter.  An arbitrary roll of encounter distance + initiative roll can lead to the banshees getting the drop on me and having zero opportunity to prepare.

In A1, there is a basilisk as a random encounter - how do I prepare for that?

In the Savage Tide AP, 5 bodak assassins riding undead tyrannosaurs teleport out on top of the party at a random point - no warning.

And this is perfectly in keeping with D&D actually.  Bodaks ARE demonic assassins.  It's one of their reasons for being.  

Retrievers also have SoD abilities.  Their entire purpose is to go out and hunt specific people.  


The idea that SoD creatures should only be used in very specific circumstances where the PC's have ample opportunity to prepare themselves isn't supported by the rules.  Quite the opposite in fact.  SoD creatures are meant to be used as Aha Gotcha monsters when the players are least prepared.  Whether it's monsters like Rot Grubs and Green Slime or intelligent stuff, older versions of the game were chockablock with this sort of thing.

If that's the kind of game you enjoy, more power to you.  I do not.  I find them arbitrary, far, far too metagamey, and lead the players into a very antagonistic relationship with the DM.


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 10, 2010)

I've been rolling this over in my head for a few days, trying to come up with what I felt was the best answer.

I like SoD's in _limited use_, it's logical that some creatures, and some powers _should_ present you with this situation.  However, lets face it, even if *magical beast* can force you to make a SoD as a natural ability, it needs to have some sort of limitation.  SoD's can be fun if there is a solid reason for them to happen, it keeps people on their toes, and is usually lore-correct.

That does not however prevent them from being overused by DMs who just want to cause trouble for a group.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 10, 2010)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Funny thing is, in the original tellings of the story, way back in the day, it was even more scary. There was only one Medusa. And, anyone who had ever seen her was stone. So NO ONE knew what she looked like. You did not know that there was a snake-haired woman over there to avoid. You just knew SOMETHING over there would turn you to stone with a glance.




Weren't there three Gorgons?  I've never heard the version where there was only one.

Learn something new every day.

As to the rest, well, I'll leave that to other people.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 10, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm also a bit of a fan of "damage with special effect at 0 hp," though I haven't seen a lot of that. Meet the Medusa's gaze, and you take damage as your body turns slowly to stone, and if it reduces you to 0 hp, you become petrified, but if you're not at 0 hp, you don't need to worry about it. This makes HP more of an arbiter of "when things go wrong" then saves or anything does.



For the record, this is what I did in a mid-heroic 4E game with a medusa that I modified to be a solo monster. The medusa's gaze inflicted ongoing 10 damage and slowed (save ends); _first failed save:_ ongoing 10 damage and immobilized (save ends); _second failed save:_ ongoing 10 damage and restrained (save ends); _third failed save:_ ongoing 10 damage and stunned (save ends), with the PC only turning to stone if he was reduced to 0 hit points while taking ongoing damage. 

The fight went pretty well, and more importantly, I thought it modeled the effect of a medusa's gaze on the general population quite well (since most ordinary people would have less than 10 hp and would turn to stone almost immediately after being affected by the medusa's gaze) while allowing heroes like the PCs to overcome the effects and survive.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 10, 2010)

Two things:



> A medusa is indistinguishable from a normal human at distances greater  than 30 feet (or closer, if its face is concealed). The creature often  wears garments that enhance its body while hiding its face behind a hood  or veil.




You literally cannot identify a medusa until it's turned you to stone.

You can rant until your blue in the face about how DMs should spare SoDs for only super dramatic foretold enemies, but in those cases, the SoD is just a plot device, not a game mechanic.

As for the "difficulty" part of being heroic, BS.

Let's say you make a boss who just instant kills you 5/6 times he attacks.  Wow, that'd be a really challenging level, and I'm sure it would be really exciting to beat it, but does that make it heroic?  Or cool?  Or fun?  Or interesting?  _No._

You seem to be under this extremely *bizarre* idea that SoDs constitute as challenge.  It doesn't.  Playing rocket tag isn't challenging, it's just "which initiative won" or "how far in advance did you plan."  Challenge isn't a wizard that can just one shot you half the time, challenging is an enemy that does enough damage to keep you on your toes, and takes enough damage to keep the combat going.  In a combat where you can _shift tactics_ due to how the fight is going.  You can't do that with SoDs.

Stop this garbage about "wizard boo boo," or the hilariously passive aggressiveness.  It doesn't help your point to make things stupid and needlessly polarized, it just makes you look...well, like someone who needs to be passive aggressive and spew out garbage to feel superior to others.  If the only way you can imagine a challenge is by just killing off PCs without giving them much of a chance, you have the problem, not the game.

Oh, and stop spouting garbage about heroes when you've been disproven every time you open your gob about it.  And change your sig, too, it's embarrassing.

~ See the above? it is a good example of the kind of language which isn't appropriate. If you think you need to insult people, then step away from the keyboard for a bit, else you face threadbanning at the least: Plane Sailing ~


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 10, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> You're assuming the death is _certain_, which tells me you have _no idea how 4e save effects work_.



Makes sense, as I don't play 4e, but that doesn't change anything: a quick unavoidable death is and remains far preferable to a slow unavoidable death.


> You misunderstand.
> 
> Look at the sword and sorcery style gameplay where this is most evident or in the literature.  The characters aren't "heroes," though they are protagonists.  They aren't guided by morality or the desire to do good.  The standard dungeon crawl came purely out of "There's treasure in there, go get it."



Now that's a whole bunch of assumptions bundled into 4 lines of type.

Who says S-and-S adventurers can't also be - or become - heroes?  Or that dungeon crawlers live only for the treasure?

I mean, look at it this way: a hero needs only two things to become a hero.  One, to do some good and-or useful things (most adventurers do such on a regular basis).  Two, a good press agent (as said adventurers have probably got rich along the way, they can afford one).


> It's interesting, because each edition leans more towards adventure over grim and grittiness.  As alignment became more codified, it was more excepted that adventurers were such for reasons of morality rather then pure greed.  Settings became more complex and filled in, which in turn gave rise to bigger and more complex backstories to characters.  Character options grew, as did both the ability to and the desire to fully customize your character beyond just "fighting man" or "wizard."



Yes.  Sad, isn't it?


> That has nothing to do with what we're talking about.



It it the exact crux of what we're talking about.  Those who die - by any means, including SoD - are dead.  Those who survive are (potentially) heroes.

And as for SoD, there's a different and forgotten perspective to look at here: that of the party as a unit.  If one character has to (save or) die in order to warn the rest there's something around that corner best left alone - or that's going to need some real preparation in order to deal with - what's the problem?

That said, I do agree with Raven Crowking's point that if a game is to be high-death then character generation also has to be relatively simple.


> Having a group go through dozens of characters falling like rats doesn't fit any literary tropes.



For traditional literature, you're right.  For D+D story-hours or game logs, however, it *is* the trope! 

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 10, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> ... challenging is an enemy that does enough damage to keep you on your toes, and takes enough damage to keep the combat going.  In a combat where you can _shift tactics_ due to how the fight is going.  You can't do that with SoDs.



Yes you can, *by the rest of the party reacting to the death *(or the made save).

What seems like a relatively simple battle against a frail-looking human gets turned on its head when Fred the Fearless suddenly petrifies in front of her.  Yeah, the tactics are gonna change; as they should!   I fail to see an overall problem; and while Fred's player might not be too happy for a few moments, stuff happens and it's part of the game.

Lanefan


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 10, 2010)

Interestingly, FFZ has functionally immortal characters and save-or-die effects. It's heavily narrative, but it has no problem with putting characters through the wringer. Y'know that piece of writing advice, "kill your children," "break the cutie," "make conflict?" That's FFZ's narrative mantra. When you know your character isn't really going to die, it opens up such spectacular vistas of failure and temporary disability, that it might make death appealing. 

I'm not sure where that fits on the continuum of narrative vs. game, but it certainly matches the videogames, which is something of the point. 



			
				Firelance said:
			
		

> The fight went pretty well, and more importantly, I thought it modeled the effect of a medusa's gaze on the general population quite well (since most ordinary people would have less than 10 hp and would turn to stone almost immediately after being affected by the medusa's gaze) while allowing heroes like the PCs to overcome the effects and survive.




That's why I like it. It lets you play a "grim n gritty" style where, like with Grim n Gritty HP, one sword wound might kill you, or to play it in a more heroic style, where, even if you're surrounded and have a knife to your back and are falling off a cliff, you might be able to survive. 

In the heroic example, this would mean having a staring contest with the Medusa, using sheer force of will to stave off petrification.

In your 4e combat, I'm assuming that's basically what the Defender did.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 10, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Yes you can, *by the rest of the party reacting to the death *(or the made save).
> 
> What seems like a relatively simple battle against a frail-looking human gets turned on its head when Fred the Fearless suddenly petrifies in front of her.  Yeah, the tactics are gonna change; as they should!   I fail to see an overall problem; and *while Fred's player might not be too happy for a few moments*, stuff happens and it's part of the game.
> 
> Lanefan




And that's the problem isn't it?  

It's rarely "just a few moments".  Even if chargen is very quick, unless you don't care at all about continuity in the game, the party still has to go somewhere to meet the new PC.  "A few moments" in actuality might easily be a couple of hours.

I do not play games to be a spectator.

Honestly, if I was to go back to games with high kill rates, I'd use something like 3:16, which really does play into the idea of disposable heroes.  In D&D, where your character is meant to last for a while, since most people do seem to like giving a modicum of backstory and personality to their character, high death rates is the death of role play.

It takes a pretty stellar role player to put the same effort into his sixth character in as many sessions as he put into the first one.  And multiple characters, IME, means that you have either one character with a personality and a silent tag along, or two wooden mannequin characters with pretty much no personality between them.

It's been a very long time, I think, for most D&D gamers, to even consider multiple concurrent PC's as a base method of play.  Certainly the game hasn't advocated anything like that in decades.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 10, 2010)

Hussar said:


> And that's the problem isn't it?
> 
> It's rarely "just a few moments".  Even if chargen is very quick, unless you don't care at all about continuity in the game, the party still has to go somewhere to meet the new PC.  "A few moments" in actuality might easily be a couple of hours.
> 
> I do not play games to be a spectator.



Where I accept that it happens sometimes. (my personal record, which *was* excessive: I once sat through 6 sessions (!) waiting for the party to find my character in a dungeon; they missed the room where he was shackled to a table on their way in, went through the entire adventure and found him on their way out!  And I didn't have a pre-existing character in that party...)



> It takes a pretty stellar role player to put the same effort into his sixth character in as many sessions as he put into the first one.  And multiple characters, IME, means that you have either one character with a personality and a silent tag along, or two wooden mannequin characters with pretty much no personality between them.



You haven't met my crew, have you? Or my characters? 


> It's been a very long time, I think, for most D&D gamers, to even consider multiple concurrent PC's as a base method of play.  Certainly the game hasn't advocated anything like that in decades.



And my point has always been that this is a mistake, given that characters can easily find themselves out of action for a while by any number of different means - including roleplaying; I've roleplayed myself right out of parties on several occasions, just by having my character(s) do what they would logically do. 

Lan-"the character shackled to the table was, in fact, Lanefan"-efan


----------



## Hussar (Aug 10, 2010)

Good grief Lanefan.  You actually kept playing with that DM?  You, sir, have an amazing level of intestinal fortitude.  I freely admit that I would not stand for that.  And, really, I think that most players are in the same boat.  Forcing someone to not play for several hours to maintain a sense of verisimilitude is not the sense of priorities I want in a DM.  Ever.

As far as the multiple PC's idea being a solution, I'll admit I like the idea to some degree.  It does have legs, although, IMO, it simply spackles over the problem, rather than solving it.  It's great for some games - Paranoia springs to mind - but, I'm not sure if it would be something many gamers would like in long term campaigns. 

The problem that is being spackled over, is frequent character removal from play.  Whether that removal is from character death or role play, frequent character removal is the problem.

So, while multiple PC's does speak to the symptoms of the problem, it doesn't actually solve them.  After all, you need a method to restock your stable of characters or you wind up right back at the same problem - a player with no character to play.

The other direction to take is to simply mitigate (not remove) the number of characters removed from play.  The example of a character being role played out of the group is solved by group templates, where a given character must have connections to existing characters before it is incorporated into the group.  Instead of random stranger with a glowing "P" over his head in a tavern, the new PC must have at least one, and hopefully more, reasons for joining the group and staying with it.

Instead of multiple creatures with SoD, reduce the total number, mitigate the effects of poison to make it debilitating rather than lethal, and possibly reduce the odds that a SoD will actually result in death (snakes that give +4 save bonuses, SSSoD, that sort of thing).  Less characters die, and the problem is greatly reduced.

That's more or less why I don't think multiple characters is the way to go.  It's only dealing with the symptoms, not the underlying problem.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 10, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Makes sense, as I don't play 4e, but that doesn't change anything: a quick unavoidable death is and remains far preferable to a slow unavoidable death.




Ignoring your love for old school D&D _in general_ and how arguing about that will get us nowhere, for christ's sake, read how 4e mechanics work before you criticize them.  You're just coming off as ignorant here.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 10, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Makes sense, as I don't play 4e, but that doesn't change anything: a quick unavoidable death is and remains far preferable to a slow unavoidable death.



Um, I think the whole point to having multiple saving throws is to ensure that death _isn't_ unavoidable. 

And I think that's the other aspect of the SoD issue that has been raised, but not really explored yet (at least, not in this thread): the number of opportunities for action between the time the player realizes that his character might die and the time the character actually dies. 

Of course, this is not really an issue if you take the perspective that the whole point of a saving throw (and IIRC, the original idea behind a "saving" throw in the first place) is that the character _should_ be dead: he's been hit by a death spell, he's looked at a medusa, he's gotten a faceful of deadly poison gas, etc. However, because he's a hero (or he has the potential to be one), he's got one chance to _not_ die. Go ahead. Roll your saving throw.

If you take this perspective, by the time a player is rolling a saving throw for his character, he would have already made enough mistakes and/or been unlucky enough that his character should be dead. You might have to deal with issues such as whether the players and DMs have different ideas about what is a "mistake", and how much bad luck and/or how many mistakes are "enough", but here, saving throws are always to the player's benefit because the alternative is simply "die, no save". Smart play consists of avoiding the need to make a saving throw in the first place, whether through research, planning, magical divination and/or protection, avoiding combat through negotiation or evasion, etc. 

However, sometimes the DM simply wants to increase the threat of death in an encounter without making the fight arbitrarily lethal. IMO, straight SoD doesn't work as well in such scenarios because the player usually can't do much after his character has been targeted by a SoD effect except make a saving throw. The multiple saves before death model works better in such cases because the player will usually have a number of options he could potentially take: try to run away (if being away from the monster stops the effect), try to kill the monster as quickly as possible (if the monster's death stops the effect) or try to remove the effect (if he can). 

Incidentally, I think that this chance to take action between realizing the increased likelihood of death and the actual death of the character (should it occur) is one key reason why some gamers who don't mind it (much ) when their characters die in normal combat still don't like SoD.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 10, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> Of course, if the Outlaw Josey Wales were a D&D character, he'd probably not be 1st or 2nd level, so he'd have to empty his six shooter into the average monster before he'd have a chance at killing it . . .
> 
> Which is why I can't quite like d20 Modern; gimme GURPS or SW or SR or something like that, please. Let everyone be vulnerable to the gun (or sword, or spell).




Don't forget that d20 modern has a low massive damage threshold, thus making more things vulnerable to single bullets. 

Or is that too SoD?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 10, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I'd really prefer a Will Save to control the urge to glance.
> 
> But, regardless, in situations of this type I always describe a "save" as having avoided ever meeting the gaze.  If you see Medusa in my game, you turn to stone.




Me too.

In fact, back in 1e days I rejigged the saving throw table, giving a distinct line for every character class, and putting in a wider range of potential saving throw causes. Each cause had a base save at level 1, and the number improved by 1 every two levels. The one with the biggest variance was 'Save vs Gaze', and thieves were brilliant at this (because they were really used to not making eye contact) while paladins were lousy (because their nature is to stare back proudly and bravely!)

Cheers


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 10, 2010)

Hussar said:


> The idea that SoD creatures should only be used in very specific circumstances where the PC's have ample opportunity to prepare themselves isn't supported by the rules.  Quite the opposite in fact.  SoD creatures are meant to be used as Aha Gotcha monsters when the players are least prepared.  Whether it's monsters like Rot Grubs and Green Slime or intelligent stuff, older versions of the game were chockablock with this sort of thing.



I think you're right. There are plenty of SoD critters in the wandering monster tables in the DMG.



> This pivoting stone portal will always swing open to the left, giving egress to an area guarded by a basilisk. However, if a second hidden stud is found (1 % chance), then it will pivot to the right and allow entry to a chamber containing a magical fountain.



 - 1e DMG pg 217

The medusa entry in the 1e MM seems designed as a gotcha too. The range at which the medusa can be distinguished as not a shapely human is less than or equal to the range of her gaze attack. Seems quite deliberate.



> The gaze of a medusa's eyes will turn creatures within 3" [ie 30ft indoors] to stone unless they make their save versus petrification.
> ...
> the face is of horrid visage, and its snakey hair writhes, so at a close distance (20') this gives the creature away. The glaring red-rimmed eyes of a medusa are visible clearly at 30'.




Should've used your spyglass, noob! Actually what's up with that? Her red-rimmed eyes are visible at longer range than her head full of snakes? That seems a bit odd.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 10, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Where I accept that it happens sometimes. (my personal record, which *was* excessive: I once sat through 6 sessions (!) waiting for the party to find my character in a dungeon; they missed the room where he was shackled to a table on their way in, went through the entire adventure and found him on their way out!  And I didn't have a pre-existing character in that party...)




Silly DM! Should have just had him shackled to the wall/floor/table in the next appropriate room which was visited, rather than write it on a map and shake their head when the party didn't open the correct door!


----------



## FireLance (Aug 10, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Silly DM! Should have just had him shackled to the wall/floor/table in the next appropriate room which was visited, rather than write it on a map and shake their head when the party didn't open the correct door!



I'm 50% sure there's a joke about Schrodinger's shackling in here somewhere.


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 10, 2010)

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm a DM and voted against save or die. I've seen what it can do to a game, I can see the misery it can cause a player who loses a long-running PC to an out-of-the-blue effect, and in this referee's opinion, it ain't worth it.

For the record, I also think that 4E's multi-save death spiral is a brilliant solution to the problem.

Now having said all that, I have no problem with save or die's that are telegraphed in advance, so that the PC's have a chance to plan accordingly. That's exactly the right kind of jeopardy IMO.


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 10, 2010)

AGAINST.

The senate has spoken. The law has been struck down!

Senatus Populus ENworldus..


----------



## hazel monday (Aug 10, 2010)

I am pro-fun.

I am pro-excitement.

I am pro-save or die.

I am the greatest DM of all time and I endorse this message.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 10, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Weren't there three Gorgons?  I've never heard the version where there was only one.




Three gorgons; one Medusa.  



hazel monday said:


> I am pro-fun.
> 
> I am pro-excitement.
> 
> ...




Hey!  I may also be pro-fun, and I may also be pro-excitement.  I may even also be pro-save or die.  But I'm no......What was that last thing?


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Aug 10, 2010)

Something that occurred to me recently regarding the "storyness" part of the debate:

We get save-or-dies from stories.  Medusa's petrifying gaze is a story elements, and like all story elements is under complete control of the storyteller.  "One glance, you're stone, no save other than maybe looking away at the last moment" is fine in a story, but should it have been translated that way into a game?  In its original version is was designed to work with the plot protection "mechanic".  Is it really such a good idea to translate one story element over without translating over whatever else it was designed to work best with?


----------



## Reynard (Aug 10, 2010)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:
			
		

> Something that occurred to me recently regarding the "storyness" part of the debate:
> 
> We get save-or-dies from stories.  Medusa's petrifying gaze is a story elements, and like all story elements is under complete control of the storyteller.  "One glance, you're stone, no save other than maybe looking away at the last moment" is fine in a story, but should it have been translated that way into a game?  In its original version is was designed to work with the plot protection "mechanic".  Is it really such a good idea to translate one story element over without translating over whatever else it was designed to work best with?




But isn't that true of every aspect of the game, that is was a "story element" (I.e.plot device) translated to a game element?


----------



## BryonD (Aug 10, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> I think you're right. There are plenty of SoD critters in the wandering monster tables in the DMG.



Shrug, there has always been a "being a hero is part luck" element of D&D.  Gygax was very clear about that.  I have not used a wander monster table in years.  That isn't to say that "random, non-plot-related" monsters don't make regaular appearances.  But a medusa, for example, doesn't make sense as just happening to be somewhere.  A basilisk certainly could.

I 100% agree that older versions of the game had a clear "gotcha" element built in.

1E, in particular, was much more about "in the dungeon", and the whims of fate on an encounter by encounter basis.  Not that it started and ended there, but that element of the story was distinctly prominent.

Also, "only be used in very specific circumstances where the PC's have ample opportunity to prepare themselves" is a major exagerration of what I said.  Certainly having some specific circumstances where the preparation to take on a specific threat is part of the story cna be great fun.  But, there are options where no specific knowledge is needed, but a general preparation still makes sense.

All the counter argument keep insisting on removing the example from all context whatsoever.   A basilisk may be a decent wandering encounter.  But, a basilisk randomly in room 14b really makes no more sense than a medusa.  Ecology and history and culture also fit.  If there are one or more basilisks down in the caves, or a catoblepas in the swamp, then there is going to be some kind of knowledge in the surrounding area.  

When all is said and done, things should work the way they should work.  Making them less threatening just to make them less threatening does nothing but steal the fun of facing the threat.

At the end of the day, if the fun is strongly attached to "getting the story right", then no amount of fun added by removing save and die is going to outweigh the fun removed by the gamist disruption of the story.  I don't remotely expect that everyone will have the same desire for story above all else, that I have.  But that is my reason.  To me, if you get medusa wrong, then you got the story wrong.  I don't see any merit, for me, in having a live character in game that misses the very elements that make the game fun.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Aug 10, 2010)

Reynard said:


> But isn't that true of every aspect of the game, that is was a "story element" (I.e.plot device) translated to a game element?



Well my point is that when translating a story element into a game one has to consider whether how the element works in the story is a satisfactory way for it to work in the game.  I'm deliberately attempting to compare it to what I think I've read in counter-arguments against the "Well that's not how it works in stories" position, which seems to include the idea that the workings of stories can't be translated into games as they directly appear.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 10, 2010)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> Well my point is that when translating a story element into a game one has to consider whether how the element works in the story is a satisfactory way for it to work in the game.  I'm deliberately attempting to compare it to what I think I've read in counter-arguments against the "Well that's not how it works in stories" position, which seems to include the idea that the workings of stories can't be translated into games as they directly appear.




AFAICT, the main division in thought is whether or not plot-protection should work in a game in the way that it works in stories.  Or rather, to what degree it should do so.  Many, many conversations about effects like fudging, SoD, character death, etc., are really just subsets of that overarching conversation, IMHO.

IMHO, that question cannot be answered without first considering what one wants to achieve.  In a game like D&D, I want the possibility of death to be real.  What I am looking for is an exploration-based game, where players determine the level of the risk they are willing to undertake, and where greater risk = potentially greater rewards.  This colours my opinion on many topics re: fantasy role-playing games.

For instance, in 3e, it is generally advisable that the party all be the same level, as a result of the steep power curve.  I believe that this detracts from consequence, and that consequence (along with context) are what make choices meaningful.  Likewise the way treasure is managed in 4e (Essentials may address this, though):  I want the consequence of missing treasure to remain a possibility.  A strong likelihood, even, so that regions of the campaign milieu are not so easily "played out".

Likewise, I want SoD, although in my system a character can choose to lose an action to gain a bonus to that save.  (I like resource management, and I want my players to have to make resource management decisions; economy of actions is a resource.)

OTOH, if you run a game in which there are no clues as to what you might be facing, then there is no context to making decisions.  Not providing context is as bad -- perhaps far worse -- than not providing consequences.  So, no random Medusa in room 14b for me.  Nor do I make snakes silent from a distance, or snaky waving hair somehow invisible from farther than 30 feet away.  Given a choice between RAW and allowing for interesting choices/consequences.....well, it is the spirit of the game I adhere to.  Or, at least, the spirit of the game as I wish to play it!  

If I am running a game like Cubicle 7's _*Doctor Who*_, or running a superhero game like _*Mutants & Masterminds*_, SoD is not genre-appropriate, IMHO.  It is in conflict with what I want, rather than supporting it.  Still, for example, getting hit by a Dalek gun is lethal....as it should be.  Players have resources (Action Points) to ameliorate this lethality.  In the case of the Player being out of APs, they can be donated by other players (if appropriate), or the GM can offer the Unadventurous trait, which gives the player APs but causes the character to begin thinking about leaving the TARDIS.  

Again, I note that those games where the goal is to tell a story are potentially damaged by random losses (whether SoD or otherwise), while those games where the goal is to see what happens are not.  Only when you have a vested interest in a particular outcome (or subset of outcomes) does it matter what the actual outcome is.

In a D&D-type game, I don't want the GM to have a vested interest in a particular outcome.  Doing so, IMHO, damages player agency.

In a game like *Doctor Who*, I expect the GM to have a vested interest in the overarching narrative -- the narrative is (sometimes) more important than player agency in that type of game.  You have to know what it is you want in order to know what is appropriate.

OTOH, in a D&D-type game, I want the players to have a vested interest in particular outcomes -- to set goals and to attempt to meet them.  The success or failure of the players should be foreordained, IMHO, either because the GM wants to protect the PCs, or because the GM wants to have some kind of gleeful "gotcha" moment.  Both of these "undesireable" outcomes arise, you may note, from the GM determining what *should* happen, as opposed to accepting what *does* happen.

It doesn't matter which side of the screen I am on; that is what I am looking for.

Different strokes for different folks & all that, but I have never wanted for players any time I was willing to run a game.  And I have run a lot of games for a lot of people, in several states and two countries.  Nor have I ever been in a group where I could be a player for long, as my GMing was in demand.  So I can't help but imagine that this type of game, when run well (or at least as well as I can run one) is very popular.  At least throughout North America.

YMMV.  Different strokes for different folks and all that.

And if YMDoesV, you should play it the way you like it.  Life is too short for games you don't enjoy!


RC


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 10, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Well, it is merely observation that a number of people in the anti-SoD camp have, in the past, also advocated anti-D.




But we haven't actually see many people saying that, at least in this thread. Sure, it could be a statement founded on your previous experiences with such claims, but saying that "the issue many have with Save or Die is just dying, not the mechanic itself" - when most responses have indicated otherwise - seems to be putting forward a false few of the situation. 



Raven Crowking said:


> OTOH, I have no idea where you are getting "Save or Die is ok with proper gamers who are about Roleplaying and the experience, and those who don't like it are the gamers who are only focused on 'winning' and 'losing'."
> 
> AFAICT, that is a conclusion that you have reached alone, and is not even particularly supported by the posts you are responding to.




"I think that, for some games, it can be awesome to die a dramtic, heroic death, and for some games death is nothing but "losing". I think that heavy RP games are much more likely to be in the firts group, and RP light games are much mor elikely to be in the second group."

That... is the exact post I was responding to. Which outright says that some games, which are heavy on roleplaying, have awesome dramatic heroic deaths, and other games, which are light on roleplaying, are about winning and losing. 

My post was much more aimed at BryonD's statement than your own. Your own certainly seemed to feed into it - offering up the idea that the people objecting to SoD were just objecting to death in general, and didn't like to have their characters ever risk dying. Which could well have some value judgements attached, if not presented outright as such. 

In any case, as I said - I think several of your points were good ones (and that the duration of 'downtime' can be a key factor of the frustration over 'instant death'), and my only issue was point 3, particularly when taken to the much more extreme view presented by BryondD.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 10, 2010)

Reynard said:


> I'm a little confused. There's a room, which implies a door, or at least a portal of some sort, possibly with a hallway leading up to said portal. Why are the PCs blundering through the door and into the room without listening, checking from recent tracks and otherwise engaging in a little reconnoiter?




I'll return to a previous example from actual play: Party approaches a house in the woods. Rogue sneaks up to it. Listens, hears things moving about in side. Takes a quick look through a window. Sees a Bodak, dies. 

Now, were there precautions they could have taken to avoid this? Maybe. I'm sure the right divinations could have given a heads-up, followed by the right spells (Death Ward) to protect them. But 'cast divinations before every possible fight' doesn't seem an ideal style of play, and 'always have high-level casters with you' isn't going to be the default for every group.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Aug 10, 2010)

(This response is not directed specifically at you, RavenCrowking.)


> YMMV.  Different strokes for different folks and all that.



I still think it's worth asking the question if a solution to why the whole issue exists can be found, regardless of whether everyone will accept it.  If we believe that everyone can come to their own satisfactory answer and we must accept this then we must accept that in some cases that people must debate until a "solution" is found.  Not because the solution is the Ultimate Solution but because in needing a different answer to satisfy everyone so everyone can _have_ their different stroke we have to accept that these people must keep searching.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 10, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> But we haven't actually see many people saying that, at least in this thread.




Thankfully, having engaged in multiple conversations with given individuals, I am able to relate their statements in one conversation to their statements in other conversations.

It is sort of neat to have continuity in this fashion!

If you are unable to do so, I would imagine that it would make SoD particularly harsh.  "But, you heard about basilisks last adventure!  Why didn't you know they could kill with a glance?!?!"  "But that was last adventure!  You didn't say it this adventure!"





> Sure, it could be a statement founded on your previous experiences with such claims, but saying that "the issue many have with Save or Die is just dying, not the mechanic itself" - when most responses have indicated otherwise - seems to be putting forward a false few of the situation.




It is not merely a statement founded on my previous experiences with such claims; it is a statement founded on my previous experience of many of the same *claimants*. 

If I, in a later thread, claimed that I wasn't pro-SoD while trying to make another point (that, say, only logically followed if I wasn't pro-SoD), wouldn't my posts in this thread make you think twice about my claim in the other?

I should hope it would.



> "I think that, for some games, it can be awesome to die a dramtic, heroic death, and for some games death is nothing but "losing". I think that heavy RP games are much more likely to be in the firts group, and RP light games are much mor elikely to be in the second group."
> 
> That... is the exact post I was responding to. Which outright says that some games, which are heavy on roleplaying, have awesome dramatic heroic deaths, and other games, which are light on roleplaying, are about winning and losing.




Which makes which one wrongbadfun?

I think you are reading a context that isn't there.

AFAICT, this started with Doug McCrae's claim, upthread, that death was only okay in RP-light games.



> Your own certainly seemed to feed into it - offering up the idea that the people objecting to SoD were just objecting to death in general, and didn't like to have their characters ever risk dying. Which could well have some value judgements attached, if not presented outright as such.




Merely observation, again.  Many of the people saying they don't like SoD in this thread have previously discussed their dislike of D overall, and/or their support of fudging to prevent PC death.   Failing to acknowledge that -- or even outright denying that -- may lead to unnecessary confusion about what is actually being objected to.  I am not making a claim that this is a universal correspondence, but that it is a strong correspondence.

Hence the observation that this conversation is a subset of the overarching "How much plot protection should PCs have?" discussion.  

Disambiguating in this way might make the conversation more fruitful.  IMHO, anyway.


RC


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 10, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I've never played in a *good* game in which there were wizards throwing semi-random finger of death spells at PCs around every corner.




It doesn't have to be random. But part of the argument here has been that if you didn't take 'appropriate precautions', you deserve to die. But you don't always get that chance. Whether entering a room with an enemy you couldn't predict, or even having high-level wizards come after you, that Finger of Death might just be another spell in their list. That trap might just have a Wail of the Banshee that wipes the party in the corridor. That random house in the woods might just have a Bodak.

'Good' game or 'bad' game, the system provides these possibilities. And they could well be justified by the DM! But you can't just blame him if the system has them in it. You can't say, "Save or Dies are fine, and these hundreds of times they've been a problem, its just the DM's fault. He should have fixed the system on his own. He should have run things 'right'; it's his fault for not running a 'good' game."



BryonD said:


> Defeating the Finger of Death wizard is glorious.
> Getting killed by the FoD wizard can also be glorious, and memorable and fun.
> Defeating the Finger of Booboo wizard is lame. Getting defeated by the FoBB wizard is pathetic.
> 
> You can't overcome a challenge if you cower from the challenge.




Raven CrowKing, if you want to know the basis for my previous statements, here's all the proof you need. 

Look, BryonD - the situation isn't that limited. Our choices aren't, "Fight enemies with Save or Die" or "Have trivial encounters that never challenge you." 

Implying that anyone who disagrees with you is 'lame or pathetic' for fighting the wizard with "Finger of Booboo" - or are cowards who shy away from challenges - just isn't cool. 

You like Save or Die spells. I get that. You have the right to that preference, and it provides the tension you want in the game you play. But it isn't the only way to play. 

And those who object to Save or Die have many reasons for doing so. Often because they feel it doesn't make for dramatic, heroic deaths they are looking for. That doesn't mean they object to death as a whole, that doesn't mean they run from any true challenges, that doesn't mean the enemies they fight are completely trivial battles.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 10, 2010)

MrMyth said:
			
		

> I'll return to a previous example from actual play: Party approaches a house in the woods. Rogue sneaks up to it. Listens, hears things moving about in side. Takes a quick look through a window. Sees a Bodak, dies.
> 
> Now, were there precautions they could have taken to avoid this? Maybe. I'm sure the right divinations could have given a heads-up, followed by the right spells (Death Ward) to protect them. But 'cast divinations before every possible fight' doesn't seem an ideal style of play, and 'always have high-level casters with you' isn't going to be the default for every group.




Can we contextualize a bit? Why's the party there? Why is the house there? Why is the bodak there? How long? To what effect on the local area?

Point being: it is certainly possible for the situation to play out as you describe, but how it actually plays out is highly dependent on context. And more to the point, whether the rogue's death is "fair" is equally dependent on context.

Plus, the rogue might actually make his save.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 10, 2010)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> (This response is not directed specifically at you, RavenCrowking.)




No worries!  



> I still think it's worth asking the question if a solution to why the whole issue exists can be found, regardless of whether everyone will accept it.  If we believe that everyone can come to their own satisfactory answer and we must accept this then we must accept that in some cases that people must debate until a "solution" is found.  Not because the solution is the Ultimate Solution but because in needing a different answer to satisfy everyone so everyone can _have_ their different stroke we have to accept that these people must keep searching.




If I made it seem like I disagree with this, please accept my apologies.

Again, much of the reason why the issue exists, IMHO and IME, lies in the question of where the "game" lies.  Is the game telling a story/creating a narrative?  Then a high degree of PC-plot-protection may well be desired.  Is the game exploring a fantastic environment and seeing what happens?  Then a lower degree of PC-plot-protection may be better.

Examine closely what it is you are after, and then you can usually see how the elements support or detract from that desired goal.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 10, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Raven CrowKing, if you want to know the basis for my previous statements, here's all the proof you need.





No; that fails to meet my standard of proof.

I tend to assume "IMHO and IME" is appended to all statements on the InterWeb, unless I am given a strong reason to believe this assumption false.

Sorry, but I read that as a statement of preference.  Not a statement of "Your game differs from mine, and therefore objectively sucks."

I find the InterWeb far more enjoyable the more closely I can cleave to that assumption.  Almost universally, the worst experiences I've had here and abroad were because of a spectacular failure to do so!  But, then, we are all human.  And language is always imprecise!



RC


----------



## Crispy Critter (Aug 10, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> No; that fails to meet my standard of proof.
> 
> I tend to assume "IMHO and IME" is appended to all statements on the InterWeb, unless I am given a strong reason to believe this assumption false.
> 
> ...




It's like when I tell my wife that she looks very nice today and she responds "Oh so I didn't look nice yesterday!?!" 

Until I started reading message boards I never knew that SoDs where so despised. Who knows, maybe it's a generational thing. My group's been playing D&D a long time and Save or Die was never an issue. It's been accepted and expected. "Please roll a Fort Save?" asked, especially at higher levels, ramps up the tension in the room by noticeable factor. If I ever fudged a die roll in favor of my players they would be not happy. They expect that death can come quickly at any time from any angle but understand that the rewards gained for the life their character has chosen is worth it. 

I'm primarily a DM and I hate it when a character dies. It takes some effort to introduce the new character if the old one will not or can not be raised as I like a little versimilitude when introducing a new PC to a campaign. Plus, when a character dies during a combat, the chance for a TPK rises as one less resource is available. Death effects are even more painful in that regard as the enemy normally hasn't used much in the way of resources and the PC is already dead. But the alternative for my group is far worse. Surviving a battle where death is a bad dice roll away makes them feel like they've achieved something especially if a PC has died during the fight from an SoD attack. If I give them any sort of plot-shelter they are not cool with it. I noticed the small amount of players in the poll would rather have Save or Die so maybe this is a DM problem more than a player problem in the first place.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 10, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Thankfully, having engaged in multiple conversations with given individuals, I am able to relate their statements in one conversation to their statements in other conversations.
> 
> It is sort of neat to have continuity in this fashion!
> 
> ...




Ok, let's take a look at what people have said in the thread thus far (and my apologies in advance if I misread anyone's opinion!)

Here are the people who have posted in this thread objecting to Save or Die, and specifically indicated it is because they prefer slower deaths that they feel have more drama, or just object to death being tied to one roll or being too easy: 
Festivus, Fifth Element, radmod, ElMahdi, parvatiquinta, malraux, SilvercatMoonpaw2, ProfessorCirno, Jan van Leyden, Henry, Hussar, wedgeski

Those who sorta object to Save or Die, still indicating a preferance for slower, less random deaths: 
JeffB, StreamOfTheSky, Aberzanzorax, Doug McCrae

Here are others who just objected to Save or Death without offering their views on death in general: 
messy, A Passing Maniac, Eric Anondson, Holy Bovine, Mallus, vagabundo

So. Almost everyone who has been actively involved in this discussion, and indicated a preference for no Save or Dies, has also indicated they are fine with other forms of Death. Only a few people - most of which have only briefly commented - have failed to specifically state that. *No one* has actually said they aren't a fan of death at all.

So what claimaints, precisely, are you referring to? You mention that I should call you on it if you change your stance in a later post - are you saying someone has done that here? 

I'm genuinely curious, now. Which of the people in the thread - who largely seem to be offering the opposite opinion - have previously indicated to you that they prefer avoiding death in their games entirely? 




Raven Crowking said:


> Which makes which one wrongbadfun?
> 
> I think you are reading a context that isn't there.




You really don't see the value judgement he's lobbying in that and later posts? His reference to people objecting to death because they see it as "losing" doesn't seem like a negative portrayal? His talk about how heavy-RP games have "heroic, dramatic deaths" doesn't clearly show his preference?

If you honestly are going to deny the bias in his statement, and claim that I made my portrayal of it up out of nothing - despite using the exact same language he did - then I really don't know what to say.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 10, 2010)

RavenCrowking - perhaps the larger issue here is that you are pulling your experiences into this discussion through the lens of your own biases, making the arguments you put forth seem much more broad reaching than what's going on in this particular discussion.

In other words, you're dragging in conversations which are not necessarily linked to this one other than in your own mind.

While, in some of my D&D games, I don't like frequent character death, in others, I'm perfectly fine with it.  I found that frequent character death tends to lead to very poor role playing as players put less and less effort into subsequent characters, but, that doesn't mean that I'm taking death completely off the table.

To me, the issue with SoD is intricately tied into the issue of character replacement.  How difficult is it to restore a player to play?  If, as Lanefan gave the example, a player is going to sit out for weeks at a time, death should not occur very often, if at all.  OTOH, if chargen and replacement takes all of ten minutes, as is true in something like 3:16 or Paranoia, then, hey, no problems.

My problem with SoD has nothing to do with "gamism" or "simulationism".  I couldn't care less about how it interacts within the game world.  My issue is with the table.  How does SoD affect my game (as opposed to my game world)?  I strongly dislike SoD as it was presented in AD&D.  Far too common and far too arbitrary.  I gave multiple examples from multiple adventures upthread of where SoD monsters are plopped in without any warning.

Now, a question RavenCrowking.  If SoD is perfectly fine, why the kids gloves when using it in game?  Do you always make sure that your players know what's coming up next for every encounter?  Do you never attack your PC's?  I'm going to assume that you do.  So, if SoD is perfectly acceptable as a part of the game, why treat it so differently from a standard encounter?


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 10, 2010)

Reynard said:


> Can we contextualize a bit? Why's the party there? Why is the house there? Why is the bodak there? How long? To what effect on the local area?




Oy, wish I could offer more information. The adventure was a Living Greyhawk mod, "Have Tome, Will Travel". I remember that the party was traveling across the Sheldomar looking for a number of important books of magic. 

In this case, I seem to recall we knew that it could be found at this cabin, and possibly suspected something had happened to the owner. But no indication of exactly what. Our attempt to find out resulted in the rogue's death. Sure, he could have made his save - though as a rogue, his Fort save was poor, and he was pretty likely to fail. 

Now, could the DM have provided information giving a 'heads-up' that a Bodak was inside? Having the cabin surrounded by animals that all apparently died of fright, or some such?

Sure, he could. But the system doesn't indicate he should do so.  The plot could well have reasons why that wouldn't work (say, the Bodak is chained inside as a guardian.) 

This idea that Save or Dies are 'fair' because the party has to screw up to face them just doesn't match with their presence in the game. Monsters have them, potentially with little warning that they have them until you are already making save. Many spellcasters have them. Poisonous creatures might have them. 

Do you always walk around with dozens of high-level spell buffs designed to deflect any possible death saves? Sure, though that gets into the danger of PC vs DM 'one-upsmanship', and still leaves mid-level characters out of luck. 

If Save or Dies were truly rare, and were confined to a small side-section of the rules, and included detailed instructions and guidance for DMs to prep players for them and 'give them a fighting chance'... that, I could go for. 

But that's not how it is, and you can't blame the DM for not presenting the encounter 'right' when this is _how the system presents it to him. _


----------



## Hussar (Aug 10, 2010)

I'm actually quite curious where this idea that SoD monsters should always come with warning labels on the encounters?

After all, this does not jive with the rules.  It also does not jive with how the monsters are often presented (although not always - in the 2e module A Heroes Tale, a small statue of a bird is outside a medusa's lair to give the PC's a heads up).  Most of these monsters are presented pretty clearly with the intention that the party should not be warned beforehand.  That an encounter with one of these monsters should be a surprise that you are not prepared for.

Where does this idea that it's okay to use SoD monsters but only if you ensure that the players have ample opportunity to learn about them first come from?


----------



## billd91 (Aug 10, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Where does this idea that it's okay to use SoD monsters but only if you ensure that the players have ample opportunity to learn about them first come from?




Does it matter? There are plenty of elements of gaming etiquette that have evolved long after the rules have been published. I have to say, this would be a good candidate for a decent rule of thumb when designing encounters with save or die mechanics.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 10, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> So what claimaints, precisely, are you referring to? You mention that I should call you on it if you change your stance in a later post - are you saying someone has done that here?




Is there, tell me, a point to my going through the Great Archive of Locked Threads to pull quotes?  Or would you like to go through threads like this one ( http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/274845-do-you-save-pcs.html) yourself?  Suffice to say, you will see roughly the same divide, but calling individuals out is a can or worms perhaps best left sealed.  Or should I go looking for other threads with roughly the same content, and the same players?  Because, as I am sure you know, they exist to be found.

And, there is a big difference in qualifiers, I note.  I said that I have previous experience that many of the anti-SoD folks prefer to avoid D as well; I did not add the qualifiers "indicated to *you*" (does it matter to whom a post is addressed?) or "avoiding death in their games _*entirely*_" (_*entirely*_, IMHO, being a false qualifier -- for example, what of the individual who disallows death unless the player okays that his character dies?  The problem is still with D, and SoD is still merely a symptom).



> You really don't see the value judgement he's lobbying in that and later posts? His reference to people objecting to death because they see it as "losing" doesn't seem like a negative portrayal? His talk about how heavy-RP games have "heroic, dramatic deaths" doesn't clearly show his preference?




No.  If I run a dungeon crawl, then it is easy to set up a survival-win, die-lose scenario.  Lots of convention modules have used the same metric.  And the relationship between "heroic, dramatic" _*anything*_ and role-playing is, IMHO, fairly straightforward and obvious.  How can any death be heroic except as relates to the role?  I mean, does your pawn make a heroic, dramatic sacrifice in chess?



> If you honestly are going to deny the bias in his statement, and claim that I made my portrayal of it up out of nothing - despite using the exact same language he did - then I really don't know what to say.




I don't deny the bias -- preference is, by definition, bias.  But there is a difference between stating personal bias, and claiming that personal bias in universal.  I see plenty of the former, none of the latter.

But, perhaps, ByronD will be kind enough to correct me if I am wrong?



Hussar said:


> RavenCrowking - perhaps the larger issue here is that you are pulling your experiences into this discussion through the lens of your own biases, making the arguments you put forth seem much more broad reaching than what's going on in this particular discussion.
> 
> In other words, you're dragging in conversations which are not necessarily linked to this one other than in your own mind.




It is possible that there is no logical link between disliking D and disliking SoD, but it is also fairly obvious that, if you dislike D, you are going to dislike XoD, regardless of what X is.

Making an observation that there is, AFAICT, a direct and obvious link between the two is hardly bias.



> Now, a question RavenCrowking.  If SoD is perfectly fine, why the kids gloves when using it in game?  Do you always make sure that your players know what's coming up next for every encounter?  Do you never attack your PC's?  I'm going to assume that you do.  So, if SoD is perfectly acceptable as a part of the game, why treat it so differently from a standard encounter?




Depends upon how you define SoD, but, in general, anything that has a large impact on the environment is going to leave a correspondingly large footprint.  I never make sure that my players know what's coming up for any encounter; I do, however, supply the means to do so, corresponding to the environmental footprint of the encounter.  

This is, IMHO, no different than noting that a mountain lion loose in your neighbourhood is more noteworthy -- and more likely to be noted -- than a squirrel.  One consistently makes the local news; the other does not.

Now, if a low-level PC happens to decide that shaking down the city's criminals for info is a good idea, takes no pains to conceal his identity, and causes problems up the food chain, the local mob boss will take steps to eliminate the problem.  This is pretty analogous to a SoD in my game, because assassins can potentially do massive damage....easily enough to kill a PC with a single dagger thrust.

My twin mantras are "Context" and "Consequence".  "Context" means supplying information -- _*or making a supply of information possible*_.  If the players choose not to seek information, that is when "Consequence" comes into play.

BTW, not making snaky hair somehow silent and invisible isn't treating SoD encounters differently than other encounters; it is putting them back on the same footing.  I don't make rust monsters silent, either, or orcs indistinguishable from humans at ranges greater than 30 feet.

EDIT:  Likewise, for example, if you know you've p.o.ed a demon lord capable of sending bodak assassins after you, enough to make said demon lord really, really want you out of the picture, you might want to take precautions against bodak assassins.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 10, 2010)

@ MrMyth:  On consideration, perhaps it is best to say that my statement doesn't meet your standard of evidence, and your statement re: ByronD doesn't meet mine.  It is surely possible that we can disagree, while respecting each other's opinions.  And this is a discussion I've participated in with many of these same folks far too many times.  

Previous statements exist to read and draw conclusions from, for all of us.  For those who are interested, I have provided one link.  It is easy enough to find other threads.  I would rather drop this, because I know where it leads.

I stand by my statement; disregard it if you like.

@ Hussar:  I addressed the table problems upthread.  The longer it takes to create a character and/or resolve an encounter, the longer it takes to get to a point where a new PC can be introduced.....and therefore, the more damaging death may be to game play.  This is, at least in part, an element related to system choice.


RC


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 10, 2010)

RC, you're reading things into people that aren't their beliefs.  I've killed two PCs in my last two sessions as DM (well, one was a Darwin Award* - the other was just the end of a hell of a big fight).  One of my DMs has been killing PCs at the average rate of one per session since the campaign started (admittedly including two near TPKs.)  On the other hand I dislike save or dies in games longer term than Paranoia or Dread.  They are too instant.  I like the dramatic tension of dying, and the scrabbling to rescue the dying character before he expires.  I like the "Oh _!_  We've ed up.  How do we get out of it?"  Not the "Poof.  He's dead.  Next character."  Most fights, the PCs consider themselves fortunate to all be out alive.

Also I'm going to accuse you of some gamism there.  Sure the medusa in the 1e MM was bad (snakes that are less visible than red eyes?)  But a good assassin will not tell you he's coming.  A wizard spell like _Finger of Death_ under the Vancian system is far more useful if the target doesn't know what you have prepared.

* Taking _five_ opportunity attacks at once to charge the spellcaster?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 10, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> RC, you're reading things into people that aren't their beliefs.




A general statement should not be taken to be true for all individuals.  

Perhaps it is best to say that my statement doesn't meet your standard of evidence, although I continue to stand by it.  I only need to have what amounts to the same conversation with the same people a limited number of times before I begin to recognize an obvious pattern.  You do not see the same pattern; that's cool.  It is surely possible that we can agree to disagree, while respecting each other's opinions. 

EDIT:  And please note that "obvious" here refers to its evidenciary value from my position; I do not necessate that it be *objectively* obvious.  After all, one can easily argue that *nothing* is objectively obvious.



> Also I'm going to accuse you of some gamism there.  Sure the medusa in the 1e MM was bad (snakes that are less visible than red eyes?)  But a good assassin will not tell you he's coming.




Who suggested that an assassin would?  

But I would suggest that, if you intend upon beating up the local mafia, you might want to consider the possibility.  Including that the assassin won't offer a business card first!


----------



## Lidgar (Aug 10, 2010)

While I voted that I am not in favor of save or die, that stance is more tied to the flavor of the system that I play most in now (Pathfinder). If playing 1e or similar, save or die is part of the "flavor" and I am ok with it. Even under Pathfinder, the bodies can still stack up - they just tend to accrue based upon poor decisions ("hey, let's separate!") or a series of unlucky rolls rather than a single cast of the dice.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 10, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> @ MrMyth: On consideration, perhaps it is best to say that my statement doesn't meet your standard of evidence, and your statement re: ByronD doesn't meet mine. It is surely possible that we can disagree, while respecting each other's opinions. And this is a discussion I've participated in with many of these same folks far too many times.
> 
> Previous statements exist to read and draw conclusions from, for all of us. For those who are interested, I have provided one link. It is easy enough to find other threads. I would rather drop this, because I know where it leads.




Fair enough. I'll say this: I'm not a fan of Save or Die (though I think they can have their place when used by a good DM), and my objections to it have nothing to do with disliking PC death in general. From almost every opinion offered in this thread thus far, most people who dislike Save or Die mechanics seems to feel similarly. 

The key issues with Save or Die, from what I can tell, instead tend to fall into a few different complaints: 

1) That it gives luck _too _much impact in the game. Having random chance is a core part of D&D; having a single roll decide everything can undercut a player's ability to feel like their decisions have had an impact on the game.

2) It can make for unsatisfying deaths. Some feel that death that feels like a natural consequence of the decisions and results of a combat can be appropriate, heroic, and dramatic, while death that strikes from out of the blue simply leaves one feeling frustrated.

3) It can be disruptive to the rhythm of the game. This can be true of any death, since the party needs to figure out how to get the character back or find a new party member, or get the player back in the game in some fashion. Save or Die effects potentially exacerbate this by making death more plentiful, as well as increasing the odds of it happening at the start of a big combat, leaving the character to see on the sidelines and watch through the entire fight. 

I don't think these are universally true, and even when they are, for some there are advantages to SoD effects that outweigh any potential negatives. Similarly, there are approaches one can take (keeping SoD rare, turning it into a challenge for the PCs to prepare for, etc) that can mitigate these problems or even potentially turn them into something that enhances the game. 

But I think these are much closer to the heart of the issue more than anyone objecting to character death in general, or cowering away from a challenge. 

It is entirely possible to object to the specific issues of Save or Die effects while still wanting both the possibility of character death, and the ability to have an intense and challenging game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 10, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> The key issues with Save or Die instead tend to fall into a few different complaints:




The points you make are certainly subsets of the overarching question:  How much plot protection are the PCs to have?  I.e., the more the game is to be the creation of a narrative, the more plot protection the PC need, and the more the game is an exploration of what happens, the less.

For example, (1) it is obviously true that no matter how many "S"es you put before the oD (SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSoD), eventually there is an actual SoD at the end of it.  

I am not aware of a single instance in any game I have ever played, as player or GM, even under the crappiest GMs I have ever known, where a player's decisions didn't have an impact on the game, nor any game where, at times, a single roll did not decide everything.  This has been brought up in previous discussions, and in all cases it has been demonstrated that player choices led to the fateful die being cast.  Personally, plot protection via player-controlled mechanics (APs, frex) are superior to excising the deadly effect, IMHO.  Or, worse yet, fudging them!

(2) Is only true if certain types of deaths are deemed "satisfying" and "unsatisfying"; which is another way of limiting the acceptable narratives.  See comments on this upthread.

(3) Disruption of the game is definitely a possibility, either in the narrative (see my comments re: narrativism), or at the table (see my comments re: encounter time and character creation time).

It should be noted that your objects (2) and (3) have little to do with SoD, and are objections to the _*death itself*_.  In the case of (2), any death not agreed to by the player may be considered anti-climactic, or otherwise unfun.  

The argument, therefore, rests on the rather shaky ground (1) supplies.  I would suggest that, if your characters are killed without making any choices leading to that death, you have deeper problems than whether or not the game includes SoD.

Perhaps, though, by "choices" we mean "narrative choices" -- which, again, leads back to what I said earlier:  If your goal is to provide a particular type of narrative, SoD (without some form of mitigation, such as APs) is likely not for you.  Rather than bolster your goal, it works against it.

The reason for the objection to character death is not, IMHO, to "cower away from a challenge" but to ensure that the mechanics bolster the desired game experience.  For some, the creation of such a narrative might be as challenging as others find exploration-type games.  I suspect, though, that the desire in this type of game is weighted toward _*discovery of the story*_ rather than *challenge* per se.  

(Indeed, the "challenging" subsystems typically mitigate that challenge so as to avoid damaging the narrative.  And they _*should do so*_, as it is the narrative which is the main goal!)

IMHO, confusion arises when people don't consider the goals of the pasttime they are engaging in.  To some degree, challenge (the chance of failure) is contradictory to narrative (a preset outcome).  Deciding what you want, and how to balance these two *well*, requires both serious thought and honest self-appraisal.

Obviously, you cannot as easily choose to play games that you like if you don't know *what* you like or _*why*_ you like it.  Then there is the task of determining whether a ruleset supports your goals (nice!) or goes against them (requires modification of rules, or of goals, or the adoption of a different ruleset).

It is also obviously true that if you mitigate undesierable outcomes you reduce challenge in proportion to your mitigation.  Which is, obviously, a good thing to the degree that "challenge" is not your main goal -- or is, in fact, antiethical to your main goal -- for playing.  And the more you reduce challenge, the greater control you give the players over narration.  It is up to each group to determine exactly where along the challenge-narrative axis they wish their game to fall.  There is no right answer, and there never has been a universal one.  We all fall somewhere toward the middle.

Again, IMHO and IME.  YMMV.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 10, 2010)

BTW, if a game system takes so long to resolve encounters, and so long to generate new characters, that the PITA factor of character death is too great to endure, *despite the fact that character death is otherwise consistent with the goals of the people at the table and the stated intentions of the RAW*, then that is a serious flaw in terms of the ruleset.

I found this to be true for 3e, and to some degree true for 2e as well.

YMMV!!!!


RC


----------



## Alcamtar (Aug 10, 2010)

Yes I think there should be saving throws to avoid death. Instant death without even a chance to survive sucks.


What I think you are really asking is whether there should be instant death in the game...? Yes I think there should. Not everything should be a gradual whittling away of hit points or resources. Not everything should take time to resolve. Not everything should be a "best roll out of three" challenge.

People misunderstand save-or-die. A saving throw is the slim possibility that you'll avoid certain death. _Certain_ death. Or to put it another way:

If you are rolling a saving throw... you are already a dead man.

The solution is not to fix the saving throw. A save vs death is a good thing, not a bad thing. Without that save you'd have no chance at all. The solution is not to put yourself in a place where you may be killed. Are undead scary? Flee! Can a spider kill you with one bite? Then _don't go near it_. Can a wizard slay you with a word? Then don't make him angry. This is not rocket science. Want a second chance? You had dozens of chances leading up to this encounter, which you foolishly ignored. Your fault. Adventuring is a dangerous pursuit.

Yes sometimes you have to heroically face death in order to achieve your goals. That is noble and laudable. But if you take the teeth out of the risk, you also take the courage and nobility out of the effort. Heroes die. The willingness to lay down your life is what makes you a hero.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. To the extent that you guarantee success, you destroy the glory and the thrill.

One last comment: GMs should not force characters into an instant death situation. I don't mean you shouldn't put surprise deathtraps into a dungeon: anyone going into a dungeon does so with their eyes open to the hazards. And it's OK to require a deadly challenge in order to achieve a heroic goal. And I think its okay if the PCs get on the wrong side of the assassins guild to send one after them. But a GM should not put characters on a railroad track leading to a deadly peril against their will. The only defense against these is careful preparation and/or avoidance, and if you take that possibility away it is very unfair and unfun.

OK another last comment:  When you play D&D, death is your bedfellow. You deal it out, and (sooner or later) you will receive it at the hands of another. The fun is the play in between. IMO accepting this reality makes the game more fun, and makes questions like this easier to answer. So many characters to play, so little time!! Death is not frequent enough sometimes.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 10, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> For example, (1) it is obviously true that no matter how many "S"es you put before the oD (SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSoD), eventually there is an actual SoD at the end of it.




Yeah, that's... not true. If I enter the epic fight with the evil wizard who has plagued the land, and he wins initiative and kills me with his first spell, that's a very different experience than if my soul starts with wither away, and I fight on through the pain for several rounds before perishing on a third failed save. In that instance, I still get to contribute to the fight - and I have choices to make on trying to fight off the creeping death or do what I can before it claims me. 

Yes, there is a final roll that ends things, but one informed by prior rolls and actions, as opposed to a single roll disconnected from everything else.



Raven Crowking said:


> I am not aware of a single instance in any game I have ever played, as player or GM, even under the crappiest GMs I have ever known, where a player's decisions didn't have an impact on the game, nor any game where, at times, a single roll did not decide everything. This has been brought up in previous discussions, and in all cases it has been demonstrated that player choices led to the fateful die being cast.




Well, yes, to an extent. But I'm talking about more immediate decisions and their impact. Yes, a rogue that peers in the window and dies to a bodak made choices that resulted in his death - he chose to play a rogue, he chose to go on an adventure, he chose to be the party scout. But could he have made a decision that would have saved him, short of playing a different character? None were presented to him, and that was what was frustrating about the experience. 

Whereas the deaths that people are saying are acceptable are ones that come after a good deal of action. You are in a fight, and it starts to go badly. At that point you have choices - do you try to retreat, or fight it out? If you get low, do you back up and try to get healed, or keep the enemy busy? Do you try and engage the caster if it leaves you open to being surrounded? If a companion falls, do you try to save them, or focus on finishing off the enemy before another friend drops? 

Those are decisions you have to make. And when someone does die, it is usually as a consequence of those choices. Whether for good or ill, people feel it was the result of choices they made, rather than just random chance at the start of an encounter. 

Luck can still be a big part of it, sure, and you can still _have _SoD encounters where choices help or hinder you - but in many people's experiences, they have perished to Save or Die and it has felt like something they had no control over, as opposed to dying during an ongoing battle when they could feel as though decisions they made led to their death. Without Save or Die, when luck starts to turn against you, you can try and do things to mitigate this - whether it involves retreating outright, or drawing on more resources to try and turn the tide. With Save or Die, one bit of bad luck and it is already too late. 

That isn't something you can deny - that is the experience people have had, and a reason for their feelings on Save or Die effects!



Raven Crowking said:


> (2) Is only true if certain types of deaths are deemed "satisfying" and "unsatisfying"; which is another way of limiting the acceptable narratives. See comments on this upthread.




I have no idea what you are saying here. We aren't "limiting the acceptable narratives", I'm explaining the personal preferences of certain gamers. Yes, for any individual gamer, some elements will be satisfying or unsatisfying. In this case, for some gamers, SoD deaths fall into one category or the other. Those who find them unsatisfying and lacking in drama will obviously thus not be a fan of the mechanic. There is nothing to debate there. 



Raven Crowking said:


> (3) Disruption of the game is definitely a possibility, either in the narrative (see my comments re: narrativism), or at the table (see my comments re: encounter time and character creation time).
> 
> It should be noted that your objects (2) and (3) have little to do with SoD, and are objections to the _*death itself*_. In the case of (2), any death not agreed to by the player may be considered anti-climactic, or otherwise unfun.




No, look, you still don't get to declare what my objections have to do with. Yes, any group of gamers could say that they hate all deaths from fireballs, or find any death unfun, or only want to die from falling from cliffs. That doesn't change the fact that a large number of gamers _specifically _object to death from instant-kill SoD mechanics. 

Regarding the third point, about disruption - yes, any death has the potential to disrupt the game. But my point was that, in my experience (and others, from what people have said in this thread), Save or Die has more potential to disrupt things, because it can happen before _any_ action at all. 



Raven Crowking said:


> The argument, therefore, rests on the rather shaky ground (1) supplies. I would suggest that, if your characters are killed without making any choices leading to that death, you have deeper problems than whether or not the game includes SoD.




Dude, I'm... really confused here. 

I'm not _making an argument _here. I am sharing a _preference_. I'm not sure why you feel the need to try and logically prove to me that my preference is _wrong, _or comes from "deeper problems than whether or not the game includes SoD". 

Some people have had the experience that Save or Die effects feel random and arbitrary, minimizing the character's ability to determine their own fate. 

Some people find that Save or Die effects result in less satisfying deaths than deaths that come from a greater amount of action. 

Some people find the disruption caused by Save or Die effects more significant than that of most character deaths. 

This isn't something you can disprove. These are _opinions_. It isn't a treatise on why Save or Die is eternally flawed, it is an _explanation_ of why some people don't like it. 

Similarly, you still don't get to explain why I feel the way I do. For me, this isn't about narrative and letting players die only if and when they choose to do so. This isn't about presenting them with lesser challenges. This isn't about us having some "deeper flaws" in my game or playstyle that render me incapable of using Save or Die effects 'correctly'.

This is about those things I have mentioned above, and not preferring them as the default in most of my games. It's perfectly fine to feel differently, but it is definitely not cool to either try and 'disprove' statements about how I feel, or imply that it is the result of crappy DMing on my part.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 10, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Yeah, that's... not true. If I enter the epic fight with the evil wizard who has plagued the land, and he wins initiative and kills me with his first spell, that's a very different experience than if my soul starts with wither away, and I fight on through the pain for several rounds before perishing on a third failed save. In that instance, I still get to contribute to the fight - and I have choices to make on trying to fight off the creeping death or do what I can before it claims me.




This is where we get to the heart of the matter. While the issue is often couched in player agency and "fairness" and all sorts of theoretical play discussions, the real issue with SoD is about "story" -- it is about the narrative of the game not matching the narrative of the myth, novel or movie. We never see that in a traditional narrative, a tale of revenge that ends with the protagonist coughing blood because a random snake in the forest bit him.

And I am okay with that, as long as it is understood. It's okay to expect a certain amount of "plot immunity" for players (and villains!) if everyone is aware of it and agrees. SoD isn't required for a good time at the table, and playstyles vary.

But, don't ignore it. Don't pretend it doesn't exist. And certainly don't badwrongfun the folks that think the best way to make a story with an rpg is to see what happens, and *then* tell stories about it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 10, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Yeah, that's... not true.




Sorry, but correct me if I am wrong.  I said that SSSSSSSSSSSSSSoD includes, perforce SoD.   You say that's not true?  Would you also contend that XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXY doesn't inlcude XY?



> Yes, there is a final roll that ends things, but one informed by prior rolls and actions, as opposed to a single roll disconnected from everything else.




But, again, if there is ever a single roll _*disconnected from everything else*_ you've already got bigger problems than SoD.  I've never seen it happen.  I've never seen a "Bodak in the window" scenario play out where the only choices involved where whether or not to play a rogue, go on the adventure, or be the party scout.  

I'm not saying it doesn't happen.  But, if it did happen to you, the GM involved was (IMHO) at fault.  Sorry, but that is (again, IMHO) not good GMing!  And...if you disagree, and believe it is good GMing, I have to say that I find your complaints counterintuitive at best.



> I have no idea what you are saying here.




Yet you are willing to tell me that I am wrong!



> We aren't "limiting the acceptable narratives", I'm explaining the personal preferences of certain gamers.




Is "My rogue looked into a window, saw a bodak, and died...without any warning at all!" an acceptable narrative?  If not, you are limiting the acceptable narratives.  If so, your objection vanishes.

AFAICT, we all limit the acceptable narratives.  Indeed, I am very much of the opinion that it is impossible not to.  We just differ as to which narratives are acceptable.  

Sometimes these limitations are universal -- there are Grandmother Unfriendly narratives that I have no desire to role-play in any game, regardless of genre.  Sometimes they are game or genre conventions -- I want limitations on PC deaths in Doctor Who, for example, that I do not want in D&D, and I applaud the rules in Cubicle 7's Doctor Who that make talking or running a better choice than fighting.



> No, look, you still don't get to declare what my objections have to do with.




A general statement should not be taken to be true for all individuals. 



> Dude, I'm... really confused here.




Agreed!  

I am not trying to logically prove that your preference is _*wrong*_.  AFAICT, a preference can neither be wrong nor right.  That doesn't mean that why a preference exists cannot be explored, or is not worthy of exploration!  Quite the contrary -- it is the root of self-knowledge.

IOW, classical music is fairly complex, and if I stated a preference for or against classical music, it would be a pretty good bet that it is not the complex entity "classical music" which is at the root of my like or dislike, but _*more basic factors*_ that exist within classical music, or within my relationship to classical music.

It I wanted to discover music that I truly loved, or avoid music that I truly loathed, it is not enough to just point to "classical music" -- the underlaying reasons would indicate which qualities of music (within or without of the rubric of "classical music") I should avoid or seek out.

Likewise, say (for example) that some people have had the experience that Save or Die effects feel random and arbitrary, minimizing the character's ability to determine their own fate.  Okay, well a character's ability to determine their own fate doesn't exist -- it is the _*player's*_ ability which is in question.  The character's fate is the narrative.  So it is the player's ability to control the narrative that is in question.

Say instead that some people find that Save or Die effects result in less satisfying deaths than deaths that come from a greater amount of action.  Why are they less satisfying?  Because the resultant narrative is less satisfying.

In a role-playing game, there is a constant tension between narrative control and risk of losing that narrative control.  Where you prefer that tension to be resolved is personal preference.  

This isn't a treatise on why SoD is great, or good, or eternally flawed.  It is an _explanation_ both of why some people don't like it and why some people do.  

I have been both, and I have given it a lot of thought.



> Similarly, you still don't get to explain why I feel the way I do.




Again, a general statement should not be taken to be true for all individuals. 

In all of your statements, above, are you explaining why others feel the way they do?  After all, you use "Some people".......But, no.  You are making a general statement that you do not mean to imply to be true for all indiiduals.  Right?

Please allow me the courtesy of assuming the same.

Especially as I have said so several times!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 11, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I'll return to a previous example from actual play: Party approaches a house in the woods. Rogue sneaks up to it. Listens, hears things moving about in side. Takes a quick look through a window. Sees a Bodak, dies.
> 
> Now, were there precautions they could have taken to avoid this? Maybe. I'm sure the right divinations could have given a heads-up, followed by the right spells (Death Ward) to protect them. But 'cast divinations before every possible fight' doesn't seem an ideal style of play, and 'always have high-level casters with you' isn't going to be the default for every group.




There is a flaw in your setup here, since it isn't seeing a Bodak which forces a save against death, it is meeting the bodaks gaze i.e. eye contact.

In the scenario above what actually happens is that the Rogue sneaks up, listens, hears things moving about inside. Takes a quick look through the window and sees a Bodak moving around. Hurries back and tells the party who either take appropriate precautions before a fight or hurry off in the other direction.

If the rogue has successfully sneaked up, it would be grossly unfair (or incompetent) of the DM to ignore that and have the Bodak staring out the right bit of the window just waiting for him to peek in!

Regards,


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry, but correct me if I am wrong. I said that SSSSSSSSSSSSSSoD includes, perforce SoD. You say that's not true? Would you also contend that XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXY doesn't inlcude XY?




By your logic, every death in the game is a "Save or Die" since at some point, the enemy rolls a final attack, and you die. Or you fail a last check to stabilize, and die. 

Except that you can't genuinely compare those. Save or Die effects are, intrinsically, a single roll. That is the complaint people have with them. The fact that they do occur independant of other elements of combat. 

Even if someone finishes turning to stone after 4 rounds, or dies from bleeding out after ten, or gets dropped by a monsters 3rd attack on the fifth round of combat, you can't just declare those comparable situations because "one roll occured, at the end of that sequence". If you _aren't_ try to claim those situations are comparable, then I'm not sure what your point is. 



Raven Crowking said:


> But, again, if there is ever a single roll _*disconnected from everything else*_ you've already got bigger problems than SoD. I've never seen it happen. I've never seen a "Bodak in the window" scenario play out where the only choices involved where whether or not to play a rogue, go on the adventure, or be the party scout.
> 
> I'm not saying it doesn't happen. But, if it did happen to you, the GM involved was (IMHO) at fault. Sorry, but that is (again, IMHO) not good GMing! And...if you disagree, and believe it is good GMing, I have to say that I find your complaints counterintuitive at best.




Really? 

A DM is _bad_ because they use a monster explicitly as it is written in the system? Or because the party fights an evil wizard, and he happens to have a Save or Die spell on his list somewhere? 

The problem there is solely that the DM is bad, and not, say, that there is a flaw in the system?

No, sorry, I don't buy that. Maybe a good DM could find ways around that situation. But the rules themselves put them in there, and a perfectly average DM - even an above average one - could easily use them without having done anything wrong. 

I... I honestly don't think you are trying to be offensive, here. But do you not see how, every time someone gives an example of times Save or Die effects caused problems in their game, responding with, "You and your friends are bad DMs" is _not a reasonable thing to say. _



Raven Crowking said:


> Yet you are willing to tell me that I am wrong!




Yes. When you try to portray several of my actual experiences and opinions as 'a flawed argument built on shaky ground'... yeah, I'm going to tell you that this isn't something you can claim, and I'm going to be confused why you are dead set, not on giving your own opinions on the virtues of Save or Die effects, but on trying to convince the other side that they hold invalid opinions. 



Raven Crowking said:


> Is "My rogue looked into a window, saw a bodak, and died...without any warning at all!" an acceptable narrative? If not, you are limiting the acceptable narratives. If so, your objection vanishes.




My point was that it is a completely hollow statement. "Limiting the acceptable narratives" is just a fancy way of saying "prefers playing in a way they enjoy". And that is already understood, it is the core of the discussion, and pretty much of playing the game in the first place. 

It isn't a question of acceptable narratives, it is a question of why people have these preferences. 

I just don't know why you would feel the need to say that an opinion "is only true" in the context of people having likes and dislikes. Of course it is - that's why it is an opinion! Sharing opinions on this topic is what the thread is all about. 



Raven Crowking said:


> A general statement should not be taken to be true for all individuals.




*"It should be noted that your objects (2) and (3) have little to do with SoD, and are objections to the death itself. "*

That was not a general statement. I said, "Here are reasons Save or Death can be a problem", and you responded that, "No, your objections there aren't objections to the Save or Die part, but just to the death."

That is you, attempting to tell me what I am saying. Not as a general statement, but specifically saying that my opinion meant something other than what I was saying with it. 

Again, I don't think you are trying to do this maliciously, but do you really not see how that might not be a reasonable way to engage in discussion?



Raven Crowking said:


> I am not trying to logically prove that your preference is _*wrong*_. AFAICT, a preference can neither be wrong nor right. That doesn't mean that why a preference exists cannot be explored, or is not worthy of exploration!




Heh, except that you did try to say that the opinion was wrong. 

Let's assume, though, that wasn't the case. That you are instead just trying to explain to me why my reasons for arriving at that opinion aren't valid ones. Do you really believe that to be better? 

However you cut it, telling me that my reasons for disliking Save or Die aren't valid ones, or that they are a result of being a bad DM, isn't something I'm a fan of. 



Raven Crowking said:


> Likewise, say (for example) that some people have had the experience that Save or Die effects feel random and arbitrary, minimizing the character's ability to determine their own fate. Okay, well a character's ability to determine their own fate doesn't exist -- it is the _*player's*_ ability which is in question. The character's fate is the narrative. So it is the player's ability to control the narrative that is in question.




Actually, I think you might be missing some of the point. The character _does_ have some ability to determine their own fate. If Joe the Fighter gets badly wounded, and steps back and drinks a healing potion, and this means he survives, the character has influenced his own fate. Yes, the player made the decision for the character to take that action, but it felt like the character helped determine the result of battle and their own success or failure. 

If Lyle the Rogue starts a fight, sees a bodak, and dies, he feels like he had much less control over his fate. Yes, decisions he made led to his death, but not ones that were particularly informed. The only decision he really made was being an adventure, and this resulted in his death, without anything he could do about it. 

That's what bugs him. 

Yes, you can step this all back and describe it as a matter of the character's control over the narrative, but it is relatively meaningless to do so. Yes, he wishes the narrative was that he didn't die a stupid death. That's exactly what we knew to begin with. 



Raven Crowking said:


> Say instead that some people find that Save or Die effects result in less satisfying deaths than deaths that come from a greater amount of action. Why are they less satisfying? Because the resultant narrative is less satisfying.
> 
> In a role-playing game, there is a constant tension between narrative control and risk of losing that narrative control. Where you prefer that tension to be resolved is personal preference.




I think we're running the risk of the term 'narrative' ending up bankrupt of meaning, here. 

It's meaningless to say that the reason is that "The resulting narrative is less satisfying." That's not the reason - that's an effect, and one that has a virtually identical meaning to "they didn't enjoy the game." 

And saying that they didn't enjoy the game because they didn't enjoy the game doesn't particularly tell us anything at all. 



Raven Crowking said:


> Again, a general statement should not be taken to be true for all individuals.
> 
> In all of your statements, above, are you explaining why others feel the way they do? After all, you use "Some people".......But, no. You are making a general statement that you do not mean to imply to be true for all indiiduals. Right?




Well... right and wrong. I'm referring to my own opinions, as well as those of the other people in the thread who have said virtually identical things. You know, the ones I provided a specific list of several posts back? I'm not saying these are true for _everyone_, sure. But they seem to be true for most of those offering opinions, in this thread, on this side of the discussion. 

I think that is quite a bit different than offering up opinions that you admit are not your own, but are instead hypothetical viewpoints and feelings on behalf of the opposite side of the argument.

You've said that general statements aren't meant to refer to individuals. But thus far you've both: 

1) Made a general statement about why "most" people dislike Save or Die, one that is contradicted by everyone in this thread who has _actually _spoken out against SoD effects; and
2) Referred to the specific opinions I've given by explaining that my issue isn't about Save or Die at all, but just about death alone. (Even though I've outright said that isn't the case.)

If you really want me to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't trying to explain my own opinions for me... then I recommend not making claims like the above.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 11, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> There is a flaw in your setup here, since it isn't seeing a Bodak which forces a save against death, it is meeting the bodaks gaze i.e. eye contact.
> 
> In the scenario above what actually happens is that the Rogue sneaks up, listens, hears things moving about inside. Takes a quick look through the window and sees a Bodak moving around. Hurries back and tells the party who either take appropriate precautions before a fight or hurry off in the other direction.
> 
> If the rogue has successfully sneaked up, it would be grossly unfair (or incompetent) of the DM to ignore that and have the Bodak staring out the right bit of the window just waiting for him to peek in!




Problem is, I don't think its fair to blame the DM for that, because that's how the rules say this thing works - he looks in the room. There is a Bodak within 30', and he obviously isn't trying to avert his gaze (as he doesn't know it has a gaze attack, and is trying to identify it). The rules don't provide any random chance that he doesn't meet its gaze - they say he makes a Fort Save, or dies. 

Now, I think a top-notch DM would be willing to rule otherwise - that's what good DMs do, they know when to override the rules to improve the game. But being able to rule otherwise or fix/avoid the problem doesn't mean the issue isn't still there at its base. 

That's the main issue. There are plenty of times when there could certainly be warning signs to tip the PCs off, and good DMs will often try to provide those warning signs. 

But they aren't always there, and the game itself doesn't have that assumption built in. And in many scenarios, there won't necessarily be any signs - you don't always get an extended, intricate heads-up about upcoming combats, you rarely know the contents of a wizard's spellbook in advance, nor do you even always know that you'll be fighting a wizard. 

The DM might provide you clues about what you will fight. But the game itself just says, "here's some monsters, and some spells, and they might kill you. You'll often only find this out after someone has Saved or Died."


----------



## Kingreaper (Aug 11, 2010)

Alcamtar said:


> People misunderstand save-or-die. A saving throw is the slim possibility that you'll avoid certain death. _Certain_ death. Or to put it another way:
> 
> If you are rolling a saving throw... you are already a dead man.
> 
> The solution is not to fix the saving throw. A save vs death is a good thing, not a bad thing. Without that save you'd have no chance at all.



Without that save, the GM wouldn't have thought it was acceptable to put a snake with a "just die" attack in the room.


The save ISN'T always a bonus tacked onto something that would be "just die", the save is often an excuse for including something which is, still, "just die", cleverly disguised by going "it's not my fault, it's the dice".

I enjoy games which give the players some element of control. Where the players actions (not the dice) are the main decider of whether they live or die.
If you're honestly saying "SoD" is a kindness; think, would you really include all the "SoD" critters you do, if they WERE "just die"?


----------



## SteveC (Aug 11, 2010)

A save or die is one of the few things these days that will make me just walk away from a game (and I'm typically the GM). The thing is, putting something in place where a single die roll determines the outcome of a character's story is, well, about 99% of the time it's a horrible way to do something.

I like to challenge my players, and I don't run a cake walk campaign by any measure, but save or die mechanics are such a blunt instrument to make something challenging or exciting. "Oh my, you've rolled a '1'... better luck next time." How exciting was that?

Just my opinion, but I'd say "good riddance!"

--Steve


----------



## Starman (Aug 11, 2010)

I have learned two things in this thread.

1) Some people like save-or-die at least in some circumstances.
2) Some people do not like save-or-die.

I guess it's a good thing people can play their games the way they prefer, otherwise arguments might break out or something.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 11, 2010)

MrMyth said:
			
		

> Now, I think a top-notch DM would be willing to rule otherwise - that's what good DMs do, they know when to override the rules to improve the game. But being able to rule otherwise or fix/avoid the problem doesn't mean the issue isn't still there at its base.




RavenCrowking - would you agree with Mr Myth here?  After all, this is fudging.  This is changing the rules of the game to match up with a pre-determined outcome.  So, would this be a case of good fudging and would this qualify someone as a good DM?



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> This is where we get to the heart of the matter. While the issue is often couched in player agency and "fairness" and all sorts of theoretical play discussions, the real issue with SoD is about "story" -- it is about the narrative of the game not matching the narrative of the myth, novel or movie. We never see that in a traditional narrative, a tale of revenge that ends with the protagonist coughing blood because a random snake in the forest bit him.




Not really.  At least not for me.  The issue here isn't with "story" since I have zero problems with killing PC's.  That's fine.  The issue here is that a completely arbitrary die roll that the players have no way of realistically avoiding can kill the PC.  It's not unfair because it disturbs the "story", it's unfair because ... well... completely arbitrary die rolls that kill PC's are unfair.

How do I prepare for the banshee in the attic in Land Beyond the Magic Mirror?

How do I prepare (as a 5th level AD&D party) for a randomly encountered basilisk in A1 Slave Lords Stockad?

How do I prepare for a poisonous snake in the forest, whether as a planned encounter or a random one?  After all, while a lion in my town would be news, snakes in a forest probably would not.

How do I prepare for spiders?

How do I prepare for an assassin being sent out?

Unless the DM puts up big "SAVE OR DIE AHEAD" signs and wraps every encounter in bubble wrap (which defeats the purpose in the first place), or I meta-game every single encounter, there's no way to be prepared.

It has nothing to do with "story" and everything to do with hinging play on a completely arbitrary die roll.  It's no different than the DM simply picking up a die and rolling - anything over X and your character dies.

It's neither exciting nor fun.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 11, 2010)

Starman said:


> I have learned two things in this thread.
> 
> 1) Some people like save-or-die at least in some circumstances.
> 2) Some people do not like save-or-die.
> ...




Heh, this isn't really arguing.  It's simply discussing the merits of something.  I, for one, don't feel that SoD has a lot of merits going for it in a D&D game.  In other games, I might feel differently, but in D&D?  I'm rather glad it's been gone.

Funny thing is, for me anyway, this isn't new.  Way back in 1e and early 2e, I refused to use SoD monsters when I designed adventures, or used them extremely sparingly.  Level drain was healable at my table too - 1 week per level.

I have always felt that the 10 seconds of fear you might gain from a SoD situation isn't worth it.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 11, 2010)

Dude, just don't play in games with save-or-dies.

If it is truly a gamebreaker, ask the GM before getting invested in the campaign SoDs.  He might even be willing to compromise, or drop them entirely to keep on a player.

And _seriously_: have the courtesy to ask... because as a DM I would be royally pissed if a player stormed off in a huff because I ran a with a rule I had no idea he didn't like.

As is consistently ignored in these kinds of threads, _every single last one_ of these kinds of "problems" are non-issues when the people at the table communicate about their expectations, preferences, and the like.


----------



## Starman (Aug 11, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Heh, this isn't really arguing.  It's simply discussing the merits of something.




Oh, I know. Sarcasm is my friend.


----------



## Freakohollik (Aug 11, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Really?
> 
> A DM is _bad_ because they use a monster explicitly as it is written in the system? Or because the party fights an evil wizard, and he happens to have a Save or Die spell on his list somewhere?
> 
> ...




This is really the heart of the matter. There is definitely not enough guidance in the DMG/MM to advise when it is okay to use a SoD. You say having a monster pop out of the ground with no warning fire off a save or die because the rules said so is not bad DMing? If I had to cite an example of bad DMing, that would probably be the first thing I'd say. There are plenty of bad adventure modules that do this with a group of inexplicable bodaks on a wandering encounter table or something similar.

I like SoDs, but they are often not used well and there are plenty of reasons they can get out of hand.

First, a bit of 1e history that led to an abundance of SoDs.
- Many 1e modules were tournament modules and were made intentionally very difficult. The authors would often put save or dies in there to punish mistakes. This is fine for a tournament module, but usually too harsh for standard play. But then it started showing up in adventures and modules written for standard play.

- In 1e, often the idea of "clearing" a dungeon would be foolish. The dungeon was too dangerous a place for that. You need to get in, get the big treasure in the last room, and get out. There would be save or dies, and that's why you needed to visit as few rooms as possible. The notion of visiting few rooms went away, but the SoDs did not.

- 1e saves were easy at high levels. As SoDs become more common, your saves get better. So they're less deadly. In contrast, 3e saves are built upon a 50% mechanic. That's deadly.

Those things set the table for SoD mistakes. Then 3e came along and made some mistakes too.
- First and foremost is CR. The idea that some number can tell you if it's okay to throw a monster at PCs is flawed. It is NOT okay to drop a surprise bodak on a party regardless of CR.

- Because of all abundance of SoD, preparation and protection became huge in 3e. They were there in 1e as well, but not to this extent. Someone upthread strongly disliked the idea of requiring so much magical protection. Well that's the nature of of high level 3e. With so much powerful magic around, you'd be ignoring the way the game world works if you didn't have such protections. I'm not saying it was right, I'm saying that's the way it was. But, this is never explained in any 3e book I've read. It's something you just have to figure out.


It really all comes down to this: SoDs exist to punish PCs for mistakes. If you're not willing to kill them for a given mistake, don't attach a SoD to it.


----------



## Freakohollik (Aug 11, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> Without that save, the GM wouldn't have thought it was acceptable to put a snake with a "just die" attack in the room.
> 
> 
> The save ISN'T always a bonus tacked onto something that would be "just die", the save is often an excuse for including something which is, still, "just die", cleverly disguised by going "it's not my fault, it's the dice".
> ...




You've missed his point. The point is that if you're putting in SoDs in situations where it wouldn't be a kindness, then you're using it wrong. If you put in the SoD critters with no way for the PCs to live except to make their save, you've made a DMing mistake.


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 11, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Problem is, I don't think its fair to blame the DM for that, because that's how the rules say this thing works - he looks in the room. There is a Bodak within 30', and he obviously isn't trying to avert his gaze (as he doesn't know it has a gaze attack, and is trying to identify it). The rules don't provide any random chance that he doesn't meet its gaze - they say he makes a Fort Save, or dies.



Just wanted to make a comment on this - I do think it is fair to blame the DM in this situation, especially if the rogue manages to avoid detection by the Bodak.

Gaze attacks can be turned on and off at will by the creatures with them unless the description specifically says they can't. In most cases it really make no sense for the gaze attack to be turned on all the time, you could affect allies, flying insects would be falling out of the air around you all the time, small animals would be dropping dead everywhere the creature goes (these last two would probably give you a clue that something dangerous was about) 

But you may think differently and that's fine and dandy.


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 11, 2010)

SteveC said:


> A save or die is one of the few things these days that will make me just walk away from a game (and I'm typically the GM). The thing is, putting something in place where a single die roll determines the outcome of a character's story is, well, about 99% of the time it's a horrible way to do something.
> 
> I like to challenge my players, and I don't run a cake walk campaign by any measure, but save or die mechanics are such a blunt instrument to make something challenging or exciting. "Oh my, you've rolled a '1'... better luck next time." How exciting was that?
> 
> ...



I'm truly curious - how many die rolls are needed before it isn't a game breaker for you? Do you have a set number or is it a general feeling thing?

I ask because right now i have no problem with the single roll type event, but these 3 strikes your out type events just irritate the heck out of me and I know why. Each roll is a 55% chance to succeed and after failing all three it seems like a much bigger failure than missing a single roll. It doesn't provide tension to me, it just royally pisses me off - because once it happens I'm out of the fight for an hour or two or three.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 11, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Good grief Lanefan.  You actually kept playing with that DM?



Yep.  Still am, as a matter of fact; and this event was well over 20 years ago. 


> Forcing someone to not play for several hours to maintain a sense of verisimilitude is not the sense of priorities I want in a DM.  Ever.



It's not like there was nothing to do.  If a player didn't make a session their character was at my mercy; failing that, the party had an NPC or two I could roll for; and failing that I could always just sit back with a beer and let 'em entertain me. 


> As far as the multiple PC's idea being a solution, I'll admit I like the idea to some degree.  It does have legs, although, IMO, it simply spackles over the problem, rather than solving it.  It's great for some games - Paranoia springs to mind - but, I'm not sure if it would be something many gamers would like in long term campaigns.



Party-member NPCs are another solution. 



> The problem that is being spackled over, is frequent character removal from play.  Whether that removal is from character death or role play, frequent character removal is the problem.



There's where we disagree, I think.  To you, frequent character removal is a problem.  To me, it's just part of the game.


> So, while multiple PC's does speak to the symptoms of the problem, it doesn't actually solve them.  After all, you need a method to restock your stable of characters or you wind up right back at the same problem - a player with no character to play.



That's what the roll-up dice are for.   And if your party is high enough level to have raise-dead capability in the field it's possible you won't have time to even get the dice out.



> The other direction to take is to simply mitigate (not remove) the number of characters removed from play.  The example of a character being role played out of the group is solved by group templates, where a given character must have connections to existing characters before it is incorporated into the group.  Instead of random stranger with a glowing "P" over his head in a tavern, the new PC must have at least one, and hopefully more, reasons for joining the group and staying with it.



Reasons for joining: "You look like adventurers.  I'm an adventurer.  I'm a greedy SOB.  Adventurers working in larger numbers get richer than adventurers working in smaller numbers.  Where's the adventure, and when do we leave?"



> Instead of multiple creatures with SoD, reduce the total number, mitigate the effects of poison to make it debilitating rather than lethal, and possibly reduce the odds that a SoD will actually result in death (snakes that give +4 save bonuses, SSSoD, that sort of thing).  Less characters die, and the problem is greatly reduced.



Oddly enough, though I kill lots of characters SoD isn't that much of a factor; at a rough guess I'd say failed SoD's have accounted for maybe 10-15% of the deaths in my game, and several of those were Medusa stonings.

It's usually straight-up damage that gets 'em.

Lanefan


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Aug 11, 2010)

Starman said:


> I have learned two things in this thread.
> 
> 1) Some people like save-or-die at least in some circumstances.
> 2) Some people do not like save-or-die.
> ...




As I stated before, I guess it's good haveing systems with SoD, so I can choose to use or not use them. If a designer decides that SoD is badwrongfun and removes them from the system, I have to homebrew them from the ground.

A thing that has a chence to raise issues, and lowers the chance to buy the system in the first place. Why buy a book if I have to homebrew everything?


----------



## Kingreaper (Aug 11, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> I'm truly curious - how many die rolls are needed before it isn't a game breaker for you? Do you have a set number or is it a general feeling thing?
> 
> I ask because right now i have no problem with the single roll type event, but these 3 strikes your out type events just irritate the heck out of me and I know why. Each roll is a 55% chance to succeed and after failing all three it seems like a much bigger failure than missing a single roll. It doesn't provide tension to me, it just royally pisses me off - because once it happens I'm out of the fight for an hour or two or three.



It isn't the number of die rolls, it's the ability of the party to make a difference, that matters to me.

In 4e, those three saves? Your allies can rush up and give you extra chances to succeed, they can pull you out of danger, they can do all sorts of things to make you not die.

With just one save you either die, or you don't.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 11, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> Dude, just don't play in games with save-or-dies.
> 
> If it is truly a gamebreaker, ask the GM before getting invested in the campaign SoDs.  He might even be willing to compromise, or drop them entirely to keep on a player.
> 
> ...




Oh, 100% agree with this.  This is most certainly something that should get hashed out at the table and if it's not, then at least it should get hashed out after the first time it happens.  Communications is most definitely the key.

Couple more points back to RavenCrowking before he gets back.

1.  RC, you've said that you like SoD because it leads to a logical outcome of the player's choices.  The PC's annoy the Mob, the Mob sets a hit team after them.  But, that's where I disagree.  How is the hit team having SoD abilities a logical outcome?  It could easily be that the hit team is just really nasty bastards who are going to beat you like a pinata.  Why does a demon lord have to specifically send bodaks?  After all, he could easily send something like Vrocks.  Which, in my mind, would be a much, much more fun encounter.  The only reason that a SoD creature is a "logical" outcome is because that particular creature was written with a SoD ability.  There's no mechanical reason that an assassin MUST have a SoD attack.  A rogue's backstab ability serves much the same purpose, without it having to be mostly arbitrary as to whether you die or not.

2.  RC again.  I believe you're claiming that there is no difference between SoD and SSSSSSoD.  But, the second option is precisely how combat works.  HitHHHHHH and die.  Combat doesn't work with Hit and Die, to the point where a monster whose attack does Current HP+11 is actually considered bad design.  With a multi-hit encounter, the player can react to each attack, choose tactics, get help from his friends, whatever.  With the one hit death monster, he can't do anything.  Isn't this precisely the difference between SoD and SSSSoD?

Now, Lanefan:



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> There's where we disagree, I think. To you, frequent character removal is a problem. To me, it's just part of the game.




But, if it wasn't a problem, then why have multiple PC's?  The game isn't set up for you to have multiple PC's, nor is that an assumption within the rules.  That's something you've added to address a particular outcome of the game.  If that outcome wasn't problematic, why would you address it at all?



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> Reasons for joining: "You look like adventurers. I'm an adventurer. I'm a greedy SOB. Adventurers working in larger numbers get richer than adventurers working in smaller numbers. Where's the adventure, and when do we leave?"




Yeah, I've kinda stopped playing like that in anything other than beer and pretzels games.  Granted I LIKE beer and pretzels games, I'm in the middle of a really fun one right now.  But, I find that sort of thing gets REALLY stale after the fifteenth greedy adventurer that we've met.

YMMV as someone in this thread would likely say.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 11, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> It isn't the number of die rolls, it's the ability of the party to make a difference, that matters to me.



The idea that party's chance to make a difference doesn't kick in until after the save die is rolled is a huge point of disconnect in the perpectives.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 11, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I have always felt that the 10 seconds of fear you might gain from a SoD situation isn't worth it.



And the idea that the 10 seconds of fear is the potential "gain" is another point of huge disconnect.

I will certainly agree that there is a sudden buzz of exceitment/tension/whatever at the moment of that die roll.  So it does exist.  But, that is just a trivial side bonus.  It isn't even in my mind when I think about the merits of save or die.  For my position, you can freely presume that it doesn't exist at all and have no change in the point.  Then if you get that buzz, consider it a tiny bonus dividend.

And yet you specifically identify it as the value for judging the costs against.

Thus, it seems clear that the actual benefits I gain are an unknown mystery to you.  Which is fine, it just means, as we have concluded before, that you are playing a radically different game than I am.  

I can assume that you are playing soccer all I want, there is no way I am going to show you the merits of a corner kick to your game of baseball.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 11, 2010)

It is interesting that DMs are opposed to SoD 4-3, but players are in favor 2-1.

Clearly, there are a lot more DM votes (90%), but if the frustration of character death was truly the big problem, then players would overwhlemingly be opposed.  

Perhaps players have more tendency to actual enjoy charging into the teeth of danger to test their fortune.  And if players are not afraid of losing their characters, why should DMs be?  Perhaps it is because DMs are in control.  And when that die is bouncing along the table, it is not the character's life in the balance, it is the DM control that is at risk.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 11, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> By your logic, every death in the game is a "Save or Die" since at some point, the enemy rolls a final attack, and you die. Or you fail a last check to stabilize, and die.




Absolutely.  How could it not be so?  Indeed, when you write

Save or Die effects are, intrinsically, a single roll. That is the complaint people have with them. The fact that they do occur independant of other elements of combat.​
you have shifted the goal posts from being able to make choices that lead to the roll, to having those choices _*be part of combat*_.  Why is that? 



> Really?
> 
> A DM is _bad_ because they use a monster explicitly as it is written in the system? Or because the party fights an evil wizard, and he happens to have a Save or Die spell on his list somewhere?




I would say a DM is bad if the DM is not good.  Wouldn't you agree?  Let's see what you think a good DM would do in this situation:



MrMyth said:


> Now, I think a top-notch DM would be willing to rule otherwise - that's what good DMs do, they know when to override the rules to improve the game.




Of course, I am not at all certain that the RAW does say "see a Bodak & make a save".  "Meets its gaze" =/= "Sees the creature" as Plane Sailing pointed out.  I have seen many, many people and creatures in my lifetime without meeting their gaze.  

Moreover, if we are to blame something in this case, and it is not the DM, why is it the SoD effect?  Isn't it the lack of DMing advice, if we accept your premise, that is to blame?  Or the specificly bad rules (again, if we accept your premise as to RAW) that prevent the DM from staging the SoD-effect monster better?

And, again, when I am looking at your given reasons, I am looking to see whether they hold together _*in general*_, or should be accepted *as the general case*.  They are only referred to as "yours" in the sense that you brought them forward.

There is nothing wrong with not liking SoD effects.  

There is something wrong with expecting other people to accept, as a general case, a reason that falls apart when examined.  This is true for any phenomenon, regardless of what it is.  

It is always okay for you to accept any reasoning that passes the bar of your skepticism.....in this case, I do mean you you, as well as the general you.  It is not okay to attempt to force others to accept reasoning that does not pass the bar of their skepticism.

Your position may be correct.  Your statements, at least as far as I am concerned, do not demonstrate it to be so.  I am sure you feel the same about my statements.  Therefore, I again suggest we agree to disagree.


RC


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 11, 2010)

BryonD said:


> The idea that party's chance to make a difference doesn't kick in until after the save die is rolled is a huge point of disconnect in the perpectives.



As the legionaries said in Asterix: Not Going and Not Seeing is the best way Not To Get Conquered.

It has been demonstrated that there are many Save or Dies where you can not prepare yourself (for one, any involving Vancian Casting except in the most generic sense).  It's further been demonstrated that the actual rules and advice for SoD monsters like the Medusa make it almost impossible to spot in advance.  In neither case can you prepare for them if they are used as expected.  The people claiming they can be prepared for are those tacitly house-ruling the game.

And the other half is that the Save or Dies add _nothing_ to the game.  The Rod of Orcus in 4e is not SoD.  But any ability that does 100% of the HP of any target on a hit is damn scary.  I recently had my 30hp monk take 4d10+10 hp damage in a single hit (the power recharged on a miss).  Meep!  He thought beating up the goblins and leaving the giant to the more experienced party members was a better plan.  No need for Save or Die - Hurt Like Hell was enough to establish him as a serious threat that could kill us and build the adrenaline.

And Lanefan plays old school D&D.  Gygaxian level old school.  Nothing wrong with that if it's what he enjoys.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 11, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Problem is, I don't think its fair to blame the DM for that, because that's how the rules say this thing works - he looks in the room. There is a Bodak within 30', and he obviously isn't trying to avert his gaze (as he doesn't know it has a gaze attack, and is trying to identify it). The rules don't provide any random chance that he doesn't meet its gaze - they say he makes a Fort Save, or dies.




See, I think that a slavish adherence to "rules" without applying common sense entirely opens up the DM to blame. Would said DM force someone to make a save if they saw the Bodak from behind and wasn't trying to avert their gaze? I sincerely hope not. The whole point of the rogue sneaking is that he is keeping - ta-dah - out of view of the creatures he is sneaking up on. The very fact that he successfully snuck demonstrates ipso facto that the bodak was not looking at him.

That isn't modifying the rules to suit the circumstances, it is using the tiniest modicum of common sense.



Abraxas said:


> Just wanted to make a comment on this - I do think it is fair to blame the DM in this situation, especially if the rogue manages to avoid detection by the Bodak.
> 
> Gaze attacks can be turned on and off at will by the creatures with them unless the description specifically says they can't. In most cases it really make no sense for the gaze attack to be turned on all the time, you could affect allies, flying insects would be falling out of the air around you all the time, small animals would be dropping dead everywhere the creature goes (these last two would probably give you a clue that something dangerous was about)
> 
> But you may think differently and that's fine and dandy.




However, as Abraxas reminds me, for people who like this sort of thing that's fine. Indeed, 4e seems to me to be well targetted for that approach so I suppose it may be more widespread than I would have suspected!


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 11, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> See, I think that a slavish adherence to "rules" without applying common sense entirely opens up the DM to blame. Would said DM force someone to make a save if they saw the Bodak from behind and wasn't trying to avert their gaze? I sincerely hope not. The whole point of the rogue sneaking is that he is keeping - ta-dah - out of view of the creatures he is sneaking up on. The very fact that he successfully snuck demonstrates ipso facto that the bodak was not looking at him.
> 
> That isn't modifying the rules to suit the circumstances, it is using the tiniest modicum of common sense.




Maybe I'm basing a lot of this off of experience with 3rd Edition, which did away with facing, and (at least in my experience) tended to encourage these sort of 'by the book' rulings. 

I think the idea that a DM could just rule the Bodak wasn't looking in the PCs direction (or roll a random chance to see if that was the case) is a good one - it also isn't anywhere in the rules. I think people's expectations for common sense or proper DM rulings is setting a pretty high bar, basically. The second you say that "following the rules means you are a bad DM" is the second I say, "That says, to me, that the problem is in the rules."

Are there logical circumstances in which a rogue could spy on a Bodak safely? Sure - the Bodak could be looking in the other direction, it could have its gaze disabled to protect its creator, there could be creatures scattered around outside dead from fright, etc. 

But there are also perfectly logical circumstances in which the rogue sees it, and dies. The Bodak is filled with hatred for life - it has no reason to turn its gaze off if it doesn't have allies to protect. It could as easily be looking in the rogue's direction as away. If its bound inside the cabin to guard a treasure, there is no reason for there to be warning signs outside. 

Look, when we ran into this scenario, we thought it was a poorly designed encounter. But our issue wasn't that we ran into a Save or Die monster and the DM didn't bend the rules to get us safely through it, our issue was that there was a Save or Die monster to begin with. 

There seem to be a lot of people saying that a good DM only runs these monsters in ways that give PCs plenty of warnings, or bends the rules to mitigate the Save or Die effects, or that it is ok to use Save or Die as long as you've led the PCs to take precautions to nullify the Save or Die mechanic itself. 

That just doesn't make sense to me. That isn't how they are presented in the rules - it is presented as a mechanic to kill the PCs. You can't simultaneously defend it as a mechanic - but blame the DM when they actually use it as such!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 11, 2010)

Hussar said:


> RavenCrowking - would you agree with Mr Myth here?




Yes.



> After all, this is fudging.




No.



> This is changing the rules of the game to match up with a pre-determined outcome.




No.



> So, would this be a case of good fudging




No.



> and would this qualify someone as a good DM?




Not by itself, no.



Freakohollik said:


> This is really the heart of the matter. There is definitely not enough guidance in the DMG/MM to advise when it is okay to use a SoD.




Agreed!



> You say having a monster pop out of the ground with no warning fire off a save or die because the rules said so is not bad DMing? If I had to cite an example of bad DMing, that would probably be the first thing I'd say.




Also agreed!  Hope you enjoyed your XP!  Your analysis was excellent!



Abraxas said:


> Just wanted to make a comment on this - I do think it is fair to blame the DM in this situation, especially if the rogue manages to avoid detection by the Bodak.




And I agree with you about the RAW, too.  Simply put, the "Top-notch DM" in MrMyth's scenario is following the RAW.  The bad DM is not.  IMHO, anyway.



Kingreaper said:


> With just one save you either die, or you don't.




But, no matter how many choices you add, it always comes down to you either die or you don't.

It is important to note, though, that increased risk =/= increased challenge.  Without context, there is no challenge.  "Roll 1d6 each round; on a 1 you die" certainly increases risk, but there is no challenge to go with it, and no chance to ameleorate that risk.

Bodaks jumping out of closets is kind of the same.  I don't think anyone is advocating throwing bodaks jumping out of random closets.

In 3e terms, a CR 20 monster can certainly insta-kill 1st level characters.  They will not get much of a chance to make decisions once the encounter has started.  Should this mean that we rid the game of CR 20 monsters, or does it mean rather that we should be a bit wiser about how we use them?



Hussar said:


> 1.  RC, you've said that you like SoD because it leads to a logical outcome of the player's choices.  The PC's annoy the Mob, the Mob sets a hit team after them.  But, that's where I disagree.  How is the hit team having SoD abilities a logical outcome?  It could easily be that the hit team is just really nasty bastards who are going to beat you like a pinata.  Why does a demon lord have to specifically send bodaks?  After all, he could easily send something like Vrocks.  Which, in my mind, would be a much, much more fun encounter.  The only reason that a SoD creature is a "logical" outcome is because that particular creature was written with a SoD ability.  There's no mechanical reason that an assassin MUST have a SoD attack.  A rogue's backstab ability serves much the same purpose, without it having to be mostly arbitrary as to whether you die or not.




Um.

You are misreading what I wrote.

I didn't say hit teams automatically have SoD effects; I said that, in my system, assassins have attacks that can inflict enough damage that they may as well be.

And I didn't say that a demon lord would automatically send bodaks; I said that, as a player, I would certainly consider the possibility in a 3e game.  (in 1e bodaks were something different.)  This is no different, IMHO, than assuming I might run into paralysis or level drain in the old catacombs.  It isn't because it MUST happen, but because the venue increases the odds of encountering specific creatures with those abilities.

But, if you refer to the Savage Tide bodak encounter, I believe we have discussed it in the past, and I believe I have already agreed with you that the encounter in question could have been better written.  As a player, I would not have found it unfair, but as a DM, I would have rewritten it.

Then again, I think that 3e is a lousy game after mid-levels, anyway.  



> 2.  RC again.  I believe you're claiming that there is no difference between SoD and SSSSSSoD.




No.  There is an obvious difference.  SSSSSSS.  Just as SSSSSSSSSoD perforce includes SoD, it also includes SSSSSSSSS.



> But, the second option is precisely how combat works.  HitHHHHHH and die.  Combat doesn't work with Hit and Die, to the point where a monster whose attack does Current HP+11 is actually considered bad design.




Exactly correct.  But a very little thought will demonstrate that you do not wish to remove all creatures that could cause HoD, either.  Sometimes you want a creature that cannot simply be dealt with using combat.  The challenge here is to figure out how to avoid combat, just as (in the SoD case) the challenge is to figure out how to avoid having to make the save.

It is of interest that, should you choose to eliminate any creature that can cause HoD, as the PCs' hp drop, more and more monsters must be eliminated.  Eventually, they cannot be killed through combat, because the final hit that kills them always comes from a monster that can kill them with that hit.

Consider this now:  "the player can react to each attack, choose tactics, get help from his friends, whatever" vs "With the one hit death monster, he can't do anything" is very much about "narrative control" vs. "what happens".  Narrative control is the ability to influence what happens.

With no narrative control, you might as well flip a coin.  There is no game, because there are no choices being made.  There is all consequence, but no context.

With no "what happens" beyond that narrative control, you might as well write a story.  There is no game, because the outcome is not in question, and perhaps even foreordained.  There is all context, but no consequences.

Where we differ (I believe) is not that one of us wants context, and the other consequences, but rather in where we find the optimal balance of context and consequences to be.

(It might be easier if we considered this in terms of SoF, and HoF, where F stands for Fail.  Some people do, indeed, remove "die" from the game, substituting other forms of failure in its place.  The tension between Conflict and Consequence still remains, however, and finding ones' personal "optimal balance" between the two still remains a worthy goal.)



BryonD said:


> It is interesting that DMs are opposed to SoD 4-3, but players are in favor 2-1.
> 
> Clearly, there are a lot more DM votes (90%), but if the frustration of character death was truly the big problem, then players would overwhlemingly be opposed.




That is very interesting to note, although "There are two kinds of statistics:  Lies and Damned Lies" is doubly true on dah InterWeb!

If one is running (or playing in) a narrative-focused game, it makes sense to dislike any game mechanic that harms that narrative.  As I said upthread.  If I was running a narrative-focused game, I would certainly include factors that allow the players (and myself) to reign in randomness where it damages the narrative.  That is just common sense.

Frex, Hussar has described narrative-focused games in many threads, but he also ran WLD, which is not narrative-focused.  In WLD, he allowed characters to be killed without any problems.  Quite often, though, he has said that he finds character death to break the narrative flow of his other games.  (Hussar can correct me if I am wrong in this.)  

That would seem to indicate that he has at least an instinctive grasp of how random elements can damage narrative-focused games, but can enhance exploration-focused (or non-narrative-focused) games.

He may not think of it in the same terms as I do.  He may even disagree vehemently with the terminology that I use.  But his actions demonstrate that, beyond the terminology, we are acting on understanding of the same basic principles.

Indeed, I believe this so much to be true that I once PMed Hussar for advice on running the more narratively-focused Cubicle 7 _*Doctor Who*_.

There is nothing wrong with prefering a greater degree of narrative control (or a lesser degree, for that matter), either in all games, or in specific gaming genres.  

IMHO, anyway.


RC


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 11, 2010)

I couldn't vote accurately, so I voted _impactfully_. Yeah! 

I am a GM and a player, and I don't mind "save or die" one bit. But if there are other things in its place (or thereabouts), as might be the case in different kinds of RPG, that's fine too.

So I wouldn't say it's an essential part of roleplaying games. Still, nothing wrong with it either.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 11, 2010)

Freakohollik said:


> You say having a monster pop out of the ground with no warning fire off a save or die because the rules said so is not bad DMing? If I had to cite an example of bad DMing, that would probably be the first thing I'd say. There are plenty of bad adventure modules that do this with a group of inexplicable bodaks on a wandering encounter table or something similar.




Three points, here. 

First off, I think that is distorting the situation. The DM didn't have a Bodak pop up in the middle of the party and force a save or die. The DM went looking for some level appropriate undead. The Bodak was at the right level, so was placed in a cabin to guard some magical treasure. 

Secondly... there is nothing in the rules indicating Save or Die enemies are outlawed on wandering encounter tables. Again, if a DM is looking for some undead enemies for a region in a certain level range, it seems fitting for Bodaks to end up there. 

Finally - again, Bodak's aren't the only Save or Die enemy out there. The category includes various other creatures, including potentially something as simple as poisonous snakes, along with all sorts of spellcasters. 

There are many situations where PCs might end up against these opponents without having advance warning or notification. 

What people seem to be saying is that Save or Die effects are basically outside the normal rules. That the DM is a bad DM if they use them without taking extra precautions.

But there isn't anything in the rules to indicate this. You know what we have instead? A CR system, at least in 3rd Edition. Which said the Bodak was as appropriate an encounter as a Stone Giant. Which said that a 7th level Monk is as appropriate as a 7th level Wizard. There is nothing to indicate some of these need to be treated differently, or that I can only use spellcasters if I give the PCs advance notice that the spellcaster has Save or Die effects. 

We've even got creatures that outright contradict this - what if an Assassin is hunting a PC? By their very nature, they are likely to both strike from surprise, and begin with a death attack - and yeah, this is the sort of 'gotcha' experience that people don't want from a good DM. At the same time, is the only option to just remove that scenario entirely from the game? 

People have put the blame on the DM (either for not giving advance warning) or on the PCs (for undertaking some form of action that led to an assassin coming after them). And I just don't think that's reasonable. 

As a note: I've mentioned before that my personal preference would be for there to be a section of optional house rules on using Save or Die effects that includes just this sort of advice and guidance. But that isn't what we've had in the past, and so I am focused on Save or Die as it is presented in the rules - something scattered across all sorts of enemies and spells, as just another power creatures get. 

The comments I keep seeing are that "If you put in the SoD critters with no way for the PCs to live except to make their save, you've made a DMing mistake" - but the purpose of the SoD effects, as presented in the rules themselves, isn't to force PCs to take precautions against it. The purpose, as presented, is to kill the PCs. 

Basically, are we saying that the only legitimate way to fight a Bodak is to get warned in advance, and then fight it with your eyes closed? Or, more likely, to have the Cleric cast Death Ward and render the encounter trivial?

Is the only way to fight a Wizard to divine his spellbook in advance, and load up on Rings of Counterspell? Or, if he has several spells that do the job, do you enter the fight ready to counter his signature spell, or disrupt his spellcasting - and just hope he doesn't win Initiative and kill someone first?

On the one hand, we have people saying that Save or Die is good because of the tension and challenge it adds to the game. At the same time, I'm hearing that if a DM uses Save or Die without warning the PCs in advance, or bending the rules to mitigate its effects, he is a bad DM. I don't think you can have it both ways.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 11, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Maybe I'm basing a lot of this off of experience with 3rd Edition, which did away with facing, and (at least in my experience) tended to encourage these sort of 'by the book' rulings.




The more I consider it, the more I believe 3e got wrong, and the happier I am that WotC dumped it wholesale when making 4e.  Even if 4e isn't a game I want to play.



> I think people's expectations for common sense or proper DM rulings is setting a pretty high bar, basically. The second you say that "following the rules means you are a bad DM" is the second I say, "That says, to me, that the problem is in the rules."




I think that there are a few problems here.

(1)  "Bodaks are always looking at you" isn't following the rules.

(2)  Conflation of the rules and the lack of good advice for using them.

&

(3)  "Successful sneaking means that the creature is not meeting your gaze" is not a very high bar for common sense.  If a creature is meeting your gaze, it knows you are there.  I can think of no counter example.  If a creature doesn't know you are there, perforce, it is not meeting your gaze.  Any other ruling, IMHO, is a bad ruling, _*regardless of the advice given in the rulebooks*_.

If the rulebooks actually advise you to do this, _*that is bad advice*_.

Similarly, "Use CR 20 monsters to stop 1st level PCs" is bad advice, but it doesn't mean that there should be no powerful monsters in the game.  What it does mean, however, is that you shouldn't follow that advice!


RC


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Absolutely. How could it not be so? Indeed, when you write
> 
> Save or Die effects are, intrinsically, a single roll. That is the complaint people have with them. The fact that they do occur independant of other elements of combat.​you have shifted the goal posts from being able to make choices that lead to the roll, to having those choices _*be part of combat*_. Why is that?




I'm going to keep reiterating a point you keep looking past: I'm not shifting goalposts, I'm _sharing a viewpoint_. 

When I die at the start of combat because a Wizard had a Save or Die spell, I don't feel like my character got the chance to influence his fate. Yes, there were choices I could have made that would have prevented that, such as playing a different character or investing in magic items or spells that would save me from certain death. I don't feel those would have been viable or reasonable choices to make. 

When I die at the end of a long, grueling combat, on the other hand, I feel like I had many decision points that affected the outcome, and whether I'm happy with the result or not, I feel like I had an influence on it. 

If you don't feel the same, that's fine. But my point is that, for me, a death in which I feel like I had no control over the outcome - which feels purely like random chance (the wizard happened to target me, and a single die roll happened to roll low) is less satisfying than a death that results from events I was able to influence, both by the decisions I made as a player and the actions taken by my character. 



Raven Crowking said:


> I would say a DM is bad if the DM is not good. Wouldn't you agree?




Not even remotely! That's my point - the DM that knows when to break the rules, when to bypass them, and when to apply them, is the mark of a truly good DM. There are plenty of DMs that are not at that level who are still perfectly competent DMs capable of running a decent game. 

You also seem to be ignoring some of the other cenarios. 

A DM runs an encounter with a wizard. Maybe it is a random encounter. Maybe it is an ambush by a rival adventuring party. Maybe it is the big bad guy the PCs have been hunting for months. 

If the Wizard has a Save or Die in his spellbook - or several - does that mean the DM is a bad DM? Is he a bad DM if the PCs have no advance notice of this Save or Die spell, even if it wouldn't make sense for them to do so?

I'm just trying to clarify, here, that you feel the problem in this case isn't the Save or Die spells themselves, but the DM choosing to use them without specifically preparing the PCs so they could counter them in advance?



Raven Crowking said:


> Moreover, if we are to blame something in this case, and it is not the DM, why is it the SoD effect? Isn't it the lack of DMing advice, if we accept your premise, that is to blame? Or the specificly bad rules (again, if we accept your premise as to RAW) that prevent the DM from staging the SoD-effect monster better?




That's the point I've made several times now - I'd be a lot happier with SoD effects if there were more guidance on using them. But you can't somehow divorce that from the SoD rules themselves. The lack of guidance on them, the specific implementations on them, and the places they show up in the rules - all of those things are intrinsic parts of the Save or Die rules themselves. 

I'm saying that there is a time and place for Save or Die effects, typically as something extremely rare that presents the PCs a unique challenge to overcome. But the way they have been delivered by the rules, in my past experiences, have been as just another monster or spell ability that randomly strikes down PCs. I don't like that, and I've given several reasons why. 



Raven Crowking said:


> There is something wrong with expecting other people to accept, as a general case, a reason that falls apart when examined. This is true for any phenomenon, regardless of what it is.




Let me go over the reasons I've given one more time:

1) I don't like having a single roll decide a character's fate. 
2) I find death to a SoD effect anticlimactic compared to a death as part of an epic battle. 
3) I find SoD deaths tend to be more disruptive than many other deaths. 

These are all personal preferences. Are you really telling me that you believe extensive examination will reveal that these preferences will fall apart when examined, and that I should not see any offense in your attempts to tell me that I don't have valid reasons for the preferences I have? 



Raven Crowking said:


> It is always okay for you to accept any reasoning that passes the bar of your skepticism.....in this case, I do mean you you, as well as the general you. It is not okay to attempt to force others to accept reasoning that does not pass the bar of their skepticism.
> 
> Your position may be correct. Your statements, at least as far as I am concerned, do not demonstrate it to be so.




My position can't be correct or incorrect - as I've said before, I'm offering my personal reasons for my preference. I'm not trying to force anyone to accept my own personal logic. 

I'm perfectly cool with someone who says that have not had similar experiences as I have on these topics, or who says that their preferences are different. In fact, I imagine there are people who: 

1) Find it exciting and thrilling to have everything riding on a single roll;
2) Find deaths caused by SoD to be satisfying, either because they feel like a proper mythic fate or because it feels so callous and challenge, or for any number of other reasons;
3) Don't find these deaths any more disruptive than anything else. 

I am perfectly cool with all of these opinions, which are precisely opposite the ones that I have put forward.

What I am not cool with is you saying that my opinions are founded on invalid reasoning. That the opinions I have formed are not acceptable ones to have, essentially. That you don't just disagree with how I feel, but outright need to prove that how I feel is conceptually unsound. 

That, I will continue to object to.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 11, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Secondly... there is nothing in the rules indicating Save or Die enemies are outlawed on wandering encounter tables.




Personally, I don't think that they should be.  

But I would suggest that wandering monsters make sense for the area that they are encountered on, and leave a "footprint" that gives some idea what might be wandering around there.  This is true whether the wanderer has a SoD effect or not.

If I am hiking in bear country, I am usually aware that there is a chance of meeting a bear.



> Finally - again, Bodak's aren't the only Save or Die enemy out there. The category includes various other creatures, including potentially something as simple as poisonous snakes, along with all sorts of spellcasters.




I would suggest, in 3e, the party should _*always*_ carry antitoxin.  (Or did they call it antivenom?)  It's a great deal for its price, and in a D&D world it is an elementary precaution.  Likewise, any party should have at least two characters who have maxed out the Heal skill.  After all, if you believe that "There are many situations where PCs might end up against these opponents without having advance warning or notification.", then that belief itself is a sort of warning, isn't it? 



> But there isn't anything in the rules to indicate this. You know what we have instead? A CR system




(Shudder)

Anyone who says that the CR system is an improvement over the 1e Monster Level system simply isn't paying attention!  

AFAICT, there has never been a system for choosing monsters that doesn't ultimately rely upon the common sense of the GM, and fall down if said common sense is lacking.



> We've even got creatures that outright contradict this - what if an Assassin is hunting a PC? By their very nature, they are likely to both strike from surprise, and begin with a death attack - and yeah, this is the sort of 'gotcha' experience that people don't want from a good DM.




Assassins randomly targeting people walking on the street is poor DMing.  Usually, if there is an assassin after the PCs, there is a reason for it.  And usually the PCs are aware of the reason.

I don't believe that this is poor DMing, although the outcome might be unfortunate for the PCs.  I would certainly not complain about it as a player.



> As a note: I've mentioned before that my personal preference would be for there to be a section of optional house rules on using Save or Die effects that includes just this sort of advice and guidance.




I would be happy with such a section.



> I am focused on Save or Die as it is presented in the rules - something scattered across all sorts of enemies and spells, as just another power creatures get.




If you therefore conclude that the problem is lack of advice, rather than the mechanic lacking advice, we agree!  

I am curious where you get "the purpose of the SoD effects, as presented in the rules themselves.....is to kill the PCs" from, though.  Can you quote that?



> On the one hand, we have people saying that Save or Die is good because of the tension and challenge it adds to the game. At the same time, I'm hearing that if a DM uses Save or Die without warning the PCs in advance, or bending the rules to mitigate its effects, he is a bad DM. I don't think you can have it both ways.




Tension and challenge rely upon context, which in turn rely upon the players being able to make decisions.  All tension and challenge rely upon (1) the unknown, and (2) determining how to deal with the known.

The unknown presents a challenge in terms of making it known, and a resultant tension because, until tested, the players cannot be certain how well they have met that challenge.

The known presents a challenge in terms of coming up with a plan to deal with it, and a resultant tension because, until tested, the players cannot be certain how well they have met that challenge.

In a game where a SoD (or HoD) effect can occur, the challenge of the unknown includes, perforce, the chance that one has failed to uncover something unknown and REALLY BAD.  Conversely, a game in which the PCs will always have multiple decision points once a threat becomes known, and/or is expected to be able to deal successfully with any encountered threat, there is no real tension of the unknown.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 11, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Let me go over the reasons I've given one more time:
> 
> 1) I don't like having a single roll decide a character's fate.
> 2) I find death to a SoD effect anticlimactic compared to a death as part of an epic battle.
> ...




No.  Your 1, 2, and 3 are all valid.

It is your contention that they have nothing to do with narrative control that falls apart.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Aug 11, 2010)

RC - how is manipulating situations beforehand so that the players have ample opportunity to discover that a SoD creature is in the cards in the near future not fudging?  And, how is it not fudging in order to push the action towards a particular goal (allowing the PC's to overcome the challenge without a lot of pointless death)?

Whether you fudge before the fact, or afterward, the point is, you're still manipulating the game entirely because of meta-game rules and for the express purpose of reaching a particular outcome.  You might not  like to call it that, but, that's exactly what it is.  You claim to only use SoD creatures in very specific circumstances where the PC's have opportunities to discover their presence and prepare before the encounter, specifically because SoD has such a large impact on the game.  ((Paraphrasing you from upthread))

How is that not fudging the game towards a specific goal?

I still fail to see how SoD actually enhances an exploration type game.  In fact, I see it as running rather counter to one.  In an exploration game, the entire point is that you will not know what's around the next corner.  You might have some general ideas, but, you aren't supposed to know exactly what's ahead.  Unless you're only allowing exploration games in settings where the PC's are retreading other people's footsteps, which I don't think is true, there's no particular reason why the PC's should gain access to knowledge about what's ahead of them.

Earlier, someone mentioned that SoD in earlier modules was a product of tournament modules.  I disagree.  The modules I listed, other than A1, were not tournament modules.  EX2 Land Beyond the Magic Mirror, an excellent exploration module, has a banshee in the attic of a house.  There is no one in the house, nor is there anyone in the setting who could possible know that that creature is there.  

In The Isle of Dread (the original Expert rules module), there is no way for the PC's to know that the Kopru are living in a particular section of the module and no way to know what they are capable of, since no one has ever gone to where they live and returned.  Yet, they have a pretty devastating SoD ability (actually complete domination - effectively SoD).

Just a point about Bodaks.  There's absolutely nothing in the SRD description of a Bodak that states you must "meet their gaze" or that they have to be looking at you.  I don't have my 3e MM in front of me, so, maybe there's more information there.  But, as far as the rules go, there's absolutely no requirement to "meet the creature's gaze" in order to force a saving throw.

In fact, creatures with a gaze attack can actually "force a saving throw" on a target.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 11, 2010)

RC said:
			
		

> If I am hiking in bear country, I am usually aware that there is a chance of meeting a bear.




So, we're back to bubble wrapping every encounter with a SoD creature to ensure that the PC's have a reasonable chance of preparing for the encounter?  And you consider that to be good game design?


----------



## Hussar (Aug 11, 2010)

BryonD said:


> And the idea that the 10 seconds of fear is the potential "gain" is another point of huge disconnect.
> 
> I will certainly agree that there is a sudden buzz of exceitment/tension/whatever at the moment of that die roll.  So it does exist.  But, that is just a trivial side bonus.  It isn't even in my mind when I think about the merits of save or die.  For my position, you can freely presume that it doesn't exist at all and have no change in the point.  Then if you get that buzz, consider it a tiny bonus dividend.
> 
> ...




So enlighten me BryonD.  What do you gain from having a SoD creature in the game?  What essential gaming element do you find so enhances your enjoyment of the game that the very idea of lessening the impact of a SoD creature causes you to react so negatively?

My reasons for not liking SoD are pretty much in line with Mr Myth's three points:



			
				Mr Myth said:
			
		

> 1) I don't like having a single roll decide a character's fate.
> 2) I find death to a SoD effect anticlimactic compared to a death as part of an epic battle.
> 3) I find SoD deaths tend to be more disruptive than many other deaths.




so what am I missing out on?

What is it about having a snake kill a character in a completely random encounter with a single die roll (well two - one to hit, one to fail the save) that so fills you with great glee and enjoyment of our hobby?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 11, 2010)

Hussar said:


> RC - how is manipulating situations beforehand so that the players have ample opportunity to discover that a SoD creature is in the cards in the near future not fudging?




Encounter design =/= fudging.

Fudging is taking something set and altering it so that the outcome changes.  It especially refers to (1) ignoring the roll of dice, and substituting a desired outcome, or (2) changing the statistics of a creature to reach a desired outcome.

Fudging occurs if and only if you have decided to accept "what happens" until "what happens" is not what you wanted to have happen.

To use my terminology upthread, when you decide that a random result will determine the narrative outcome, and then you change your mind when that outcome is known or seems reasonably to be known (i.e., trending toward unwanted PC failure or success), you are fudging.



> You claim to only use SoD creatures in very specific circumstances where the PC's have opportunities to discover their presence and prepare before the encounter, specifically because SoD has such a large impact on the game.  ((Paraphrasing you from upthread))




Actually, I claim to do so with all creatures, in accordance with their impact on the setting.



> I still fail to see how SoD actually enhances an exploration type game.  In fact, I see it as running rather counter to one.  In an exploration game, the entire point is that you will not know what's around the next corner.  You might have some general ideas, but, you aren't supposed to know exactly what's ahead.




Tension and challenge rely upon context, which in turn rely upon the players being able to make decisions. All tension and challenge rely upon (1) the unknown, and (2) determining how to deal with the known.

The unknown presents a challenge in terms of making it known, and a resultant tension because, until tested, the players cannot be certain how well they have met that challenge.

The known presents a challenge in terms of coming up with a plan to deal with it, and a resultant tension because, until tested, the players cannot be certain how well they have met that challenge.

In a game where a SoD (or HoD) effect can occur, the challenge of the unknown includes, perforce, the chance that one has failed to uncover something unknown and REALLY BAD. Conversely, a game in which the PCs will always have multiple decision points once a threat becomes known, and/or is expected to be able to deal successfully with any encountered threat, there is no real tension of the unknown.

And, I can assure you, meeting a bear in bear country has had a rather non-bubble-wrapped effect more than once over the course of history.



> In The Isle of Dread (the original Expert rules module), there is no way for the PC's to know that the Kopru are living in a particular section of the module and no way to know what they are capable of, since no one has ever gone to where they live and returned.  Yet, they have a pretty devastating SoD ability (actually complete domination - effectively SoD).




I am just going to take this one, because you've provided enough context to do so.  "No one has ever gone to where they live and returned" is a bit of a clue in my book that something is unusual there.  Also, how is "complete domination" SoD?  After the monsters are killed, are you still dominated?  It's been a while since I've looked at X1.



> Just a point about Bodaks.  There's absolutely nothing in the SRD description of a Bodak that states you must "meet their gaze" or that they have to be looking at you.  I don't have my 3e MM in front of me, so, maybe there's more information there.  But, as far as the rules go, there's absolutely no requirement to "meet the creature's gaze" in order to force a saving throw.
> 
> In fact, creatures with a gaze attack can actually "force a saving throw" on a target.






Let's hope that the actual book description (i.e., whatever wasn't included in the SRD) is a bit better written.  Because, if the SRD is all that there is, I agree that this is a bit sparse, esp. for the rules-lawyer nature of that edition.


RC


----------



## Reynard (Aug 11, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, we're back to bubble wrapping every encounter with a SoD creature to ensure that the PC's have a reasonable chance of preparing for the encounter?  And you consider that to be good game design?




I thought he was simply saying that if D&D has SoD creatures running around on random encounter charts, and the players are aware of said fact, then being prepared for the possibility of an SoD encounter should be a no brainer.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 11, 2010)

Reynard said:


> I thought he was simply saying that if D&D has SoD creatures running around on random encounter charts, and the players are aware of said fact, then being prepared for the possibility of an SoD encounter should be a no brainer.




Players get to know what monsters appear on the random encounter table in your adventures?  I know mine certainly don't.

And, even if I know that I can possibly meet, say, a basilisk in a given area, how exactly do I prepare for that?  Random encounters are, by their nature, rather random.  It's perfectly reasonable that a random encounter might occur while I'm camping.  How does the person on watch prepare for a basilisk encounter that might occur and still be prepared for other encounters which may occur?



			
				RavenCrowking said:
			
		

> Actually, I claim to do so with all creatures, in accordance with their impact on the setting.




You're going to tell me that players in your game can reasonably be able to discover every single creature that they can encounter in a given area?  That, if your players do a reasonable amount of homework, there will be absolutely no unknown creatures in the adventure ahead of them?

Or, are you claiming that snakes in AD&D have a greater impact on the setting than, say, a bullette because the snake has a SoD ability and a bullette does not?

I don't think I believe this.  I think that it's far more likely that there are many encounters in any adventure you run where the players have no reasonable reason to know that those creatures might be found there.

That or you run a very strange game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 11, 2010)

Reynard said:


> I thought he was simply saying that if D&D has SoD creatures running around on random encounter charts, and the players are aware of said fact, then being prepared for the possibility of an SoD encounter should be a no brainer.




Once again, I am forced to bow to your succinct wording.



Hussar said:


> And, even if I know that I can possibly meet, say, a basilisk in a given area, how exactly do I prepare for that?




Ask yourself:  Can I deal with a basilisk?  Am I prepared to accept the consequences if I cannot?

If the answer to either of these questions is "No", go somewhere else.

(EDIT:  Not surprisingly, if you replace "basilisk" with "orc" or "owlbear", the answer is the same!)



> You're going to tell me that players in your game can reasonably be able to discover every single creature that they can encounter in a given area?  That, if your players do a reasonable amount of homework, there will be absolutely no unknown creatures in the adventure ahead of them?
> 
> Or, are you claiming that snakes in AD&D have a greater impact on the setting than, say, a bullette because the snake has a SoD ability and a bullette does not?




Hussar, where do you live?  What dangerous creatures are you likely to encounter there?  What other dangers do you think likely (ex., drunk drivers, drug dealers, etc.)?

IMHO, and IME, most people know the answers to these questions.  For example, throughout most of Southern Ontario, I might encounter black bears or coyotes.  As I move north, I might encounter wolves and (eventually) polar bears.  In some areas, there are Massauga rattlers.  Brown recluse spiders and black widows are the only strongly poisonous spiders.  I don't know every poisonous plant, but I don't eat wild plants that I cannot positively identify because I am aware of the potential risks.  I look both ways before crossing the road.  On my one-way street, I know that cars sometimes go the wrong way.  I know to check for bicycles before pulling into traffic (as well as cars and pedestrians).  I'm smart enough to avoid skunks, and know to avoid raccoons or foxes that aren't avoiding me.

That's off the top of my head, stuff you can learn just by asking any old Yahoo.

I also know that there was a confirmed mountain lion sighting in the Rogue Valley ravine, and that it was not one of the Toronto Zoo's cats.  I know not to hop random fences around the zoo area, because some of them might lead me to places I'd rather not be.  I know that ticks and mosquitoes can carry disease.

When I was stationed in Louisiana, I knew that there were more venomous reptiles than I could recognize, so I simply avoided all snakes.  I didn't somehow fail to learn that alligators might be found in swamps.  I added brown spiders to my list of creepy-crawlies to be concerned about.

I imagine that adventurers could easily ask the locals what the local hazards are, and hire local guides.  After all, that is how explorers have dealt with this problem for centuries.  Sometimes it is better to question a goblin than to kill him, for he surely has some idea what lurks nearby, fearful to him.  He might not know that "gollum" lurks down by the underground lake, but he knows that something unpleasant lurks down there.  Sometimes, when the Great Goblin sends goblins down for fish, neither goblin nor fish comes back.

What do you think makes a better game:

1.  You encounter Some Awful Creature.

2.  You hear about Some Awful Creature, come across a carcass of its kill (which demonstrates that it could take down a manticore in flight, and seems to have some sort of acid attack), then spy the creature on the wing, and _*only then *_have to deal with it to meet some goal.

I am firmly on the side of (2).  You may call it "bubble wrapping every encounter"; I call it "creating anticipation, fear, and dread".

IOW, in WLD, you can have the PCs simply encounter Madness.  Or you can have the PCs encounter Madness after hearing about it in hushed & fearful whispers.  I am pretty sure that, for most of us, the second is more effective.

Maybe I _*do*_ run a very strange game.....But if I decided to run an unscheduled game tonight, I could have eight people at the table, eager to play, with ease.  That's good enough for me.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 11, 2010)

Out of curiosity, how many DMs out there have normal poisonous snakes go around targeting people for no reason?  Certainly, a human offers little prey potential to the average snake, because a snake isn't equiped to take bites & must take its prey whole.

In those places where venemous snakes do exist, that go out their way to target people, I would imagine people are aware of it.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If I am hiking in bear country, I am usually aware that there is a chance of meeting a bear.




Except, with random encounters, you've typically got a large list of possibilities. If you enter a region infested with undead, sure, you might know that you will run into undead. Does that mean you will realize that you will run into a Bodak? Does the DM instead drop signs of every single possible creature they might run into? Does the party have a cleric who can recognize some of those signs belong to a Bodak? What if he fails his check? 

And once the players know, what preparations are they going to take? Sure, if they have a cleric, and he is high-enough level, he can prep the right spells to save they day. What if they don't have one? Just keep their eyes closed all day to ensure they don't see a Bodak? 

And this doesn't help with the presence of Save or Die spells. I asked you before a few questions regarding a situation with a wizard, and how you might handle it, but didn't see any answers. 

Part of the problem I'm seeing with some of these answers, such as "be prepared for anything you could possibly fight" or "always carry antitoxin" or the like, is that we start to get into an arms-race between the DM and the players. 

If a Save or Die effect exists as part of a rare and unique encounter that the party can prepare for, they can figure out creative solutions that get around it. 

If these effects are prevalent throughout the game, it instead becomes a battle of system mastery. Are the players aware of all the possible dangers that can end them in one shot? Have they loaded up their characters with a very specific list of spells to counter certain dangers? Have they invested in the most ideal feats and items to give them rerolls and immunities and bonuses?

And sure, that is one style of play. But it isn't necessarily for everyone. 



Raven Crowking said:


> AFAICT, there has never been a system for choosing monsters that doesn't ultimately rely upon the common sense of the GM, and fall down if said common sense is lacking.




Again, putting too much burden on the DM. Saying that the DM is as fault for using a monster or spell as it is presented in the rules means the problem is with the game, not the person running with it. 



Raven Crowking said:


> Assassins randomly targeting people walking on the street is poor DMing. Usually, if there is an assassin after the PCs, there is a reason for it. And usually the PCs are aware of the reason.




The PCs might know that they have earned the emnity of King Spiteful. Does that mean they know exactly what form of retribution he might take? 

Ok, perhaps they do - perhaps they have spent time researching it and asking questions so as to be prepared (and hopefully don't have other quests distracting them from doing so). What if an assassin wasn't his first choice? What if he instead likes to consort with warlocks and demons, and the PCs figure this out, and thus demolish every summoned monster he sends against them. What if eventually he diverts from his usual approach and hires an assassin, hoping it will be more successful?

Are the PCs at fault because their enemy was creative?

Again, you seem to be saying that in your games, the players _never_ fight an enemy without knowing exactly what it is capable of, well in advance. I can see that style working, sure, but I don't think that is the default for the game. Most games tend to have it go both ways - some fights the players might be well-prepared for, others might have surprises. 



Raven Crowking said:


> I am curious where you get "the purpose of the SoD effects, as presented in the rules themselves.....is to kill the PCs" from, though. Can you quote that?




"In most cases, a death attack allows the victim a Fortitude save to avoid the affect, but if the save fails, the character dies instantly."

It is a mechanic that causes PCs to die. That is what it does. If a medusa had a special section with detailed rules on reflecting its gaze back upon itself, and ideas for helping PCs prepare for such a thing, I might feel there was more to it than that.

But as it is, the effects of these abilities are to kill PCs. For someone reading the rules and running the game as it presents itself, there is no reason to assume that the goal of a Finger of Death spell is to encourage all PCs to walk around with a bag filled with Death Ward bucklers. No, the purpose of Finger of Death is to show that this wizard is a complete badass, and he can kill someone by pointing at them!

Which is an awesome image, sure, and I can see why people like having that sort of thing in the game. I can also see why others don't. 

And I still don't buy the argument that Save or Die effects are fine because the game assumes that PCs will never actually run into them and risk dying unless either the players have screwed up, or they have a bad DM. 

Save or Die effects are in the rules because the game assumes that, sometimes, PCs will have to Save, or they will Die!


----------



## Herschel (Aug 11, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> *If you fall in lava, you die (no save). *
> 
> This is an immutable law.




However, there should be multiple chances to not actually fall IN TO the lava. If you're being pushed off a ledge, a save to not go over, then as you're desperately grabbing for handholds after your feet go over (for example).


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 11, 2010)

[edit: effectively ninja'd by RC... but his is northern N.America, mine's desert s.w.  ]

A random encounter table generally simply states what is encountered.  Rarely does it put conditions on that encounter.  When I go hiking in the desert, I know the "random encounter table" has things like rattle snake, coyote, buzzard, hawk, horny toad, cactus, javelina, etc on it.  I also know that most of them are not immediately hostile encounters; the javelina might charge on sight, but the coyotes and buzzards will probably be wary, and the hawk will almost certainly ignore me.  The one "SoD" on the list-- the rattler-- will usually rattle first, at which point I make a Knowledge check, maybe a spot check to see where it's hiding, and back off-- all without ever even dealing with the SoD effect save vs poison. 

So when I roll basilisk in a dungeon, why can't the circumstances start similarly, with a warning, or indifference, or fleeing, or etc?  The thing certainly has some chance of being uninterested (feeding, hunting or mating) or wary (the party outnumbers it 5:1), as it has of being hostile (guarding its young or stalking the scrawny party wizard).  Maybe it's simply smart enough to just hang back in the shadows, so as not to incur the wrath of the 3 or 4 out of 5 PCs it knows it probably won't TTS on the first round. 

There's nothing wrong with contextualizing an encounter (planned or random; SoD, SSSoD, or otherwise) in a way other than "charge into combat, roll saves!" or "it jumps up and goes RAWR, roll saves!".  Suppose the medusa doesn't want to fight because she's just looking for something.  Suppose the poisonous snake just scurries off without striking, like any other animal would.  Suppose the bodak is distracted because he's looking at girlie mags.

Imxp, that's not "bubble-wrapping" the encounter, it's just making it interesting.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> No. Your 1, 2, and 3 are all valid.
> 
> It is your contention that they have nothing to do with narrative control that falls apart.




My point with narrative control is more that it is a meaningless connection to draw. It's the same thing as saying, "He doesn't like this element of the game." Which we knew to begin with - you can't use that as an explanation of the result! 

Why don't I like Save or Die? Let's say cecause I find the deaths from them anticlimactic. 

You can't then say, "Ah, but you find the deaths from them anticlimactic because it reduces your sense of narrative control." Why does it reduce your sense of narrative control? Because you don't want effects like Save or Die in the game you play. 

And at that point, what you are actually saying is, "You don't like games with Save or Die because you don't find the deaths dramatic because you don't like games with Save or Die." 

It's meaningless, whether true or not.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> (Shudder)
> 
> Anyone who says that the CR system is an improvement over the 1e Monster Level system simply isn't paying attention!




Gotta call shenanigans. The CR system *is* a considerable improvement over the 10 levels of monsters in 1e. There's no question that it offers a more targeted estimate of the challenge it offers to a basic party of 4. The fact that people have read way more into the system than is there is not the fault of the CR system.



Raven Crowking said:


> AFAICT, there has never been a system for choosing monsters that doesn't ultimately rely upon the common sense of the GM, and fall down if said common sense is lacking.




This is still true even if the CR system was an improvement over the 1e monster level system.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Aug 11, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I can assume that you are playing soccer all I want, there is no way I am going to show you the merits of a corner kick to your game of baseball.




You obviously didn't see the St Louis vs Cincinatti game last night....


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Let's hope that the actual book description (i.e., whatever wasn't included in the SRD) is a bit better written.  Because, if the SRD is all that there is, I agree that this is a bit sparse, esp. for the rules-lawyer nature of that edition.



There's more info in the description of Gaze Attacks in the section on Special Abilities

From the SRD _"An opponent can avert his eyes from the creature’s face, looking at the creature’s body, watching its shadow, or tracking the creature in a reflective surface."_

This suggests that you do have to meet the creatures gaze to be effected.

Continuing from the SRD _"Each round, the opponent has a 50% chance of not having to make a saving throw. The creature with the gaze attack gains concealment relative to the opponent. An opponent can shut his eyes, turn his back on the creature, or wear a blindfold. In these cases, the opponent does not need to make a saving throw. The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment relative to the opponent."_

The following describes how a creature could force a save - but it also shows that you can take measures to avoid the gaze.

_"A creature with a gaze attack can actively attempt to use its gaze as an attack action. The creature simply chooses a target within range, and that opponent must attempt a saving throw. If the target has chosen to defend against the gaze as discussed above, the opponent gets a chance to avoid the saving throw (either 50% chance for averting eyes or 100% chance for shutting eyes). It is possible for an opponent to save against a creature’s gaze twice during the same round, once before its own action and once during the creature’s action._


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 11, 2010)

A normal poisonous snake that achieves surprise is likely to use it to get away from humans. A giant snake might consider men prey, but is probably plenty deadly -- certainly to normal men! -- without poison. A purple worm randomly gulps down victims whole (leaving so many rounds to rescue them).


Getting surprised can be as hard on PCs as it is on monsters when players surprise them. In old D&D, it offers an outlier possibility of sudden TPK. That is part of the game by design, along with other probabilities. The game was not set up from the perspective that, as the 3.5 DMG puts it, "each individual encounter is like its own game". It was not set up from the perspective of each character being "the hero of a story", or anything like that.

It was set up from the perspective of the game as a sum of histories, like many popular board, card and dice games. Especially, it was designed by and for players of wargames (miniatures and hex-and-counter). 

That factors into a lot of things, and characters getting killed is definitely one of them!

It is not the outcome for a given character that matters, but the sum of those outcomes for a given player.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 11, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Again, putting too much burden on the DM. Saying that the DM is as fault for using a monster or spell as it is presented in the rules means the problem is with the game, not the person running with it.




I'm really not getting this. How is relying on the DM to come up with reasonably sensible encounters for his game putting too much burden on the DM? The alternative puts too much burden on the game designers to account for every possible game - or I suppose it leads to the breadth of the game's options being substantially narrowed. And, frankly, I really can't support that in my non-licensed RPGs - hell, I don't like it much in my licensed IP ones either though I would be more willing to accept it as part and parcel of the IP's tone and content.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 11, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I'm really not getting this. How is relying on the DM to come up with reasonably sensible encounters for his game putting too much burden on the DM? The alternative puts too much burden on the game designers to account for every possible game - or I suppose it leads to the breadth of the game's options being substantially narrowed.




Well, except the requirement that has been placed isn't for "reasonably sensible encounter". 

In this case, I said that the system tells a DM that a Bodak and a Stone Giant are both reasonable encounters. RC said that it is up to the DM to know that the Bodak encounter requires special preparation and advance warning for the PCs, rather than being able to take the rulebook at face value. 

I think you can have plenty of perfectly reasonable encounters in which there is no guaranteed a party will have advance warning of Save or Die effects. The rules certainly don't indicate that a DM is supposed to specifically make sure the party has prepared for this one specific monster or spell ability. 

I just don't think you can simultaneously say that "Save or Die" effects are perfectly ok and an important part of the game (whether for purposes of challenge, tension, drama, whatever)... while also saying that a DM is doing it wrong when he uses these effects by the book, and doesn't take extra special precautions in designing encounters with them to ensure PCs are well-prepared for the SoD effect.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 11, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Gotta call shenanigans. The CR system *is* a considerable improvement over the 10 levels of monsters in 1e.




That's a very questionable statement, IMHO.  The AD&D 1e power curve is flatter, so that there is less of a difference between what can challenge a character party from level to level.  With the steep curve of 3e, it isn't enough to "offer a more targeted estimate of the challenge it offers to a basic party of 4" to exceed the usefulness of the 1e ML system.

In the final analysis, my experience is that CR is no better than ML.  This isn't a fault of the CR System.  It is a fault of the 3e power curve.



Abraxas said:


> There's more info in the description of Gaze Attacks in the section on Special Abilities




Thanks.

I'd XP you, but I gotta spread it around first.



MrMyth said:


> In this case, I said that the system tells a DM that a Bodak and a Stone Giant are both reasonable encounters. RC said that it is up to the DM to know that the Bodak encounter requires special preparation and advance warning for the PCs, rather than being able to take the rulebook at face value.




Again, RC would, in fact, make sure that the campaign milieu contained appropriate "footprints" for both encounters.

Nor does RC believe that it is necessary (or even advisable) for a party to have a guarantee of advance warning of Save or Die effects.  RC merely believes that the possibility of warning must be present, should the PCs choose to avail themselves of it.  Not only in the case of SoD encounters, but in the case of just about any encounter.

No matter what encounter you have, I think that the players should be able to look back at what came before (with 20/20 hindsight) and say, "Yeah, we coulda/shoulda seen that coming."  The degree to which this is true increases in proportion to the "footprint" of the creature(s) encountered. 

And expecting that level of common sense, IMHO, doesn't put too great a burden on the GM.....Although it should, perhaps, be made explicit in the GM's advice.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 11, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> My point with narrative control is more that it is a meaningless connection to draw.




Not at all.  It is not like saying "The sun is hot because it has a high temperature."

When one says that one doesn't like X because it interferes with his desired sense of narrative control, we can begin to examine what level of narrative control that person desires.  If you don't like X, you might therefore also not like Y or Z.

Moreover, you might be able to suggest house rules for systems with X that can restore the factor that X removes.

Finally, by demonstrating that something like "desire for a given degree of narrative control" is common to all rpg gamers (even if the actual degree is not), you can also demonstrate that not liking or liking X has nothing to do with "real" gaming or etc. or whatever or yadda.



RC


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> No matter what encounter you have, I think that the players should be able to look back at what came before (with 20/20 hindsight) and say, "Yeah, we coulda/shoulda seen that coming." The degree to which this is true increases in proportion to the "footprint" of the creature(s) encountered.
> 
> And expecting that level of common sense, IMHO, doesn't put too great a burden on the GM.....Although it should, perhaps, be made explicit in the GM's advice.




But I don't know if that approach is common to all campaigns. I think many will have encounters in which the PC might know outright what they are facing, encounters in which they have clues to figure it out, and encounters that contain surprises. 

The statement that seems to be offered in this thread is that the DM needs to make sure none of the encounters with 'surprises' include any Save or Die effects. Which may be reasonable in some cases, but not all - and there is nothing in the rules that says 'these encounters may need to be treated differently. These spells and abilities, despite what CR may tell you, requier special treatment.'


----------



## billd91 (Aug 11, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Well, except the requirement that has been placed isn't for "reasonably sensible encounter".
> 
> In this case, I said that the system tells a DM that a Bodak and a Stone Giant are both reasonable encounters. RC said that it is up to the DM to know that the Bodak encounter requires special preparation and advance warning for the PCs, rather than being able to take the rulebook at face value.
> 
> I think you can have plenty of perfectly reasonable encounters in which there is no guaranteed a party will have advance warning of Save or Die effects. The rules certainly don't indicate that a DM is supposed to specifically make sure the party has prepared for this one specific monster or spell ability.




I don't think the rules *need* to specify that there needs to be foreshadowing for save or die or any other specific deadly effect. At some point, it really needs to be up to the DM to determine if his players are up to the challenge of the individual monster and whether said monster or another one of the same CR really are functionally equivalent or not within the milieu of the adventure and campaign. Given the breath of potential, I really don't see the value in sticking in caveat after caveat that many DMs probably won't even read (and, if a lot of popular conceptions about encounter design over the last 10 years are any evidence, a lot of people *don't* pay any attention to the advice that is there).


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 11, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Part of the problem I'm seeing with some of these answers, such as "be prepared for anything you could possibly fight" or "always carry antitoxin" or the like, is that we start to get into an arms-race between the DM and the players.




We start to get into playing the game. It is not a problem for those of us who enjoy playing it.

Taking precautions _is_ the game. Strategies for managing risk and reward, for minimizing chance factors even though they cannot be eliminated, are where the game is.

Save-or-die effects don't make much difference to a 1st-level character -- and the difference may be a _lesser_ chance of getting killed! (In OD&D, a 1st-level cleric has a 25% chance of making two death ray / poison saves in a row, versus an average between 2% and 9%  of surviving two dice of damage.)

On the other hand, they become increasingly significant to higher-level characters. A fifth-level lightning bolt simply won't kill a character that has over 30 hit points. IIRC, no monster in the original set hits for more than 18 points per round (barring spells or magic items). An SOD effect, though, might kill 1 in 4 on average.

Even with monsters' damage output upped in Supp. I and later editions, there is a very notable qualitative difference! There is a dramatic increase in randomness, and hence of risk -- much riding on a single toss of the dice.

Note that this is just the opposite of the effect of higher average hit points with the accumulation of hit dice. Increasing hit points reduce randomness progressively as one plays a character longer.

That low-level magic-users die in droves means that replacing a full-fledged wizard is not trivial. Besides the resurrection survival chance, AD&D limits number of times raised to the character's original constitution score.

You've spent a year or more building up this character, and there's a risk of losing it altogether, and that's -- according to some folks -- "not scary"??! 

 					Originally Posted by *ProfessorCirno* 

 
_A slow death is drastically scarier then a sudden one.
_

I guess so, and if Grand Guignol is your thing, then suit yourself. As for me, losing the character is quite enough!


----------



## Reynard (Aug 11, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> The statement that seems to be offered in this thread is that the DM needs to make sure none of the encounters with 'surprises' include any Save or Die effects. Which may be reasonable in some cases, but not all - and there is nothing in the rules that says 'these encounters may need to be treated differently. These spells and abilities, despite what CR may tell you, requier special treatment.'




No one is saying this. What people are saying is that there are ways to mitigate SoD, including PCs being prepared for the eventuality (either because they know there's a bodak in the dungeon, or because they have heard tell bodaks sometimes inhabit dungeons). The only one that is suggesting that SoD can only occur if the DM has completely briefed the players beforehand is you.

It's D&D. Unless a house rule or group decision says otherwise, it can be assumed there will be SoD attacks -- poisons, death gazes and everything in between. Players that for some reason refuse to acknowledge the possibility may find themselves quite put out when they lose a beloved character for want of a relatively cheap and easy protection like anti-toxin or potions of death ward.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I'd XP you, but I gotta spread it around first.




Gotcha covered.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 11, 2010)

[double post]


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 11, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> The statement that seems to be offered in this thread is that the DM needs to make sure none of the encounters with 'surprises' include any Save or Die effects.



Actually, it looks to me like everyone is in agreement that SoDs _do_ need some sort of mitigation, either mechanical (eg, revert to SSSoDs, use APs, etc) or by circumstantial qualifiers (eg, framing the encounter). SoDs generally shouldn't be used as punitive "gotchas", unless that's the point of the game.


> Which may be reasonable in some cases, but not all - and there is nothing in the rules that says 'these encounters may need to be treated differently. These spells and abilities, despite what CR may tell you, requier special treatment.'



Yup, the rules _aren't_ perfect, SoD (and other) advice _is_ lacking, CR _is_ a blunt instrument at best, etc.

Indeed, "there is nothing in the rules that says 'these encounters may need to be treated differently'".  However, there's also nothing in the rules that prevents a DM from asking for advice and learning how to build encounters his players will enjoy.


----------



## Gimby (Aug 11, 2010)

Reynard said:


> It's D&D. Unless a house rule or group decision says otherwise, it can be assumed there will be SoD attacks -- poisons, death gazes and everything in between. Players that for some reason refuse to acknowledge the possibility may find themselves quite put out when they lose a beloved character for want of a relatively cheap and easy protection like anti-toxin or potions of death ward.




If we're talking 3.5, then you can't make potions of death ward.  Potions only go up to 3rd level spells and death ward is 4/5.  You could make scrolls of it instead, but you are still looking at 350g+28 xp at minimum each.  This protection only lasts 9 minutes, so if you are going to be spending a significant time in a dungeon you'll need several of them - thats going to add up quickly.  

Its also worth noting that Bodaks are CR 8.  You don't actually get access to Death Ward as a caster until level 9.

Personally, I've found this sort of defensive buff contributes to the "15 minute adventuring day".  If you think you may be facing a SoD enemy then you are going to be needing to spend resources (spells or consumables) in most encounters.  When you run out, then you face being one-shotted in any encounter - is pressing on without your layered protections in place recklessness or bravery?


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 11, 2010)

Reynard said:


> What people are saying is that there are ways to mitigate SoD, including PCs being prepared for the eventuality (either because they know there's a bodak in the dungeon, or because they have heard tell bodaks sometimes inhabit dungeons). The only one that is suggesting that SoD can only occur if the DM has completely briefed the players beforehand is you.




Except that when examples are given of a DM using a SoD encounter, the response seems to have been, "He was a bad DM for not briefing the players beforehand." 

I dunno. Maybe I am just misreading a lot of opinions here. If so, my apologies all around. But it definitely feels like some of the comments have been saying that if someone dies to a SoD, it is their fault - or their DMs, for not giving them a heads-up. 



Reynard said:


> It's D&D. Unless a house rule or group decision says otherwise, it can be assumed there will be SoD attacks -- poisons, death gazes and everything in between. Players that for some reason refuse to acknowledge the possibility may find themselves quite put out when they lose a beloved character for want of a relatively cheap and easy protection like anti-toxin or potions of death ward.




As I said, I can understand that style of play. 

At the same time, I don't think that is a universally desired experience. I'm playing a mid-level character. If I don't have the system mastery to know that I need Potions of Death Ward, or my character doesn't have the money to invest in them, then its my own fault when I get taken down by a SoD effect? 

And of course, part of the problem is that even taking precautions doesn't guarantee safety. If I get into a fight with a wizard, I might not know he has Finger of Death until he uses it. Or even if I see it coming - what if he wins initiative before I can drink my potion? 

If I really want to be safe, I need even better protections, which means both greater system mastery on behalf of the player, along with more resources invested in these optimized items instead of more in-character pursuits. Now, a game focused on that type of challenge and competition can be fun, certainly. 

But for others, it leads to more of a 'DM vs PC arms race' that many gamers are _not _interested in. Now, there is certainly a wide range of playstyles before it actually reaches that point, and not every game that rewards prepared PCs reaches that level or anywhere close to it!

But the presence of SoD - at least in my experience - definitely can push a group more towards it. Without it, if I walk into an encounter unprepared, and things start to go badly - I can generally cut and run, having _learned my lesson_, and come back later ready for the fight. When I run into SoD, instead, I don't have that option. Thus, encouragement to really build up system mastery and tricked-out PCs if I don't want to risk the loss of my beloved character.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Not at all. It is not like saying "The sun is hot because it has a high temperature."
> 
> When one says that one doesn't like X because it interferes with his desired sense of narrative control, we can begin to examine what level of narrative control that person desires. If you don't like X, you might therefore also not like Y or Z.




Ok, I'm not quite sure I'm getting what you are saying when you refer to narrative control. I was reading it as a player's desire for a certain amount of control over the type of game he plays, rather than specifically control he has within the game itself. 

If it is the second, then I think it can apply in some cases, but certainly not all. I can prefer to play a game that doesn't risk me ever dying in the first action of combat, without actually wanting to dictate how the combat goes, for example.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 11, 2010)

@ Gimby: If you *know* you are going to be facing a nodal, of course you will gear your prep to it, which may well lead to a 15 minute adventuring day. (As an aside, on my current PFrpg campaign, that kind of re-prepping is the cause for far more 15 MADs than going nova or whatever.) but if you *think* you might, it will inform your choices of consumables and walking around spells and would have less impact on a 15 MAD.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 11, 2010)

Reynard said:


> It's D&D. Unless a house rule or group decision says otherwise, it can be assumed there will be SoD attacks -- poisons, death gazes and everything in between. Players that for some reason refuse to acknowledge the possibility may find themselves quite put out when they lose a beloved character for want of a relatively cheap and easy protection like anti-toxin or potions of death ward.




If players are supposed to rely on these "cheap and easy protections," then one can assume experienced players will develop a "standard kit" incorporating all such protective devices. Purchasing, maintaining, and using your kit will become SOP to the point that one might as well handwave it--assume it's being taken care of, reduce treasure awards appropriately, and ignore all save-or-die effects that a kit can counter.

Only in the rare situation that players are deprived of access to their gear _and_ face a save-or-die effect that the gear would have prevented does it make a difference... or when a novice player, unfamiliar with the need for the "standard kit," fails to procure one, in which case you're basically smacking down newbies for being newbies.

The way I see it, if you're going to have save-or-die effects in your game, you might as well kill people with 'em. Defending yourself should be a non-trivial exercise requiring more than just a few gold pieces or spell slots. If you feel the need to offer cheap and easy protections, why have save-or-die in the first place?


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 11, 2010)

If you don't like the risk of sudden death (or other inconvenience), then you can simply ...

Leave the basilisks and so on out of your world.

Them as like 'em can use 'em, and it doesn't affect your game a bit.

Problem? Problem solved!

Yes, I know this is a dead letter. Fare well, oh snicker-snacking vorpal sword! Fare well, oh propeller-tailed beastie! Now rust sleeps forever.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 11, 2010)

MrMyth, I am just going to reply to your last post.

If you look upthread, you might note that I pointed out, many times, that people want a variable level of narrative control, and a variable level of "what happens" (i.e., loss of narrative control), but that both are necessary.  

These work as two poles on a line:  Whatever narrative control exists detracts perforce from random elements (or loss of narrative control); whatever elements exist where narrative control is lost perforce detract from narrative control.  

No one wants a completely unrestricted narrative ("Roll 1d6 each round; on a 1 you die from falling anvil") and no one wants a completely restricted narrative ("Let me walk your characters through my fanfic while I tell you what they do!").  What is desired is somewhere between.  Where, exactly, is a matter of personal preference.

That personal preference exists, at least in part, because when you gain something on one side of the equation, you must give up something on the other.  How you value what is gained, or what must be given up to attain it, drives preference.

Recognize this, and you can begin to work out how to shift your gains into areas you value, while shifting what you give up into the less valuable (to you) aspects of the other pole.  IOW, while from an *objective* standpoint, you must give equal to your gains, from a _*subjective*_ standpoint, this isn't necessarily so.

This is one of the reasons it is taking me so long to finalize my own system (RCFG).  I am carefully examining aspects to determine that what I give up, from that subjective standpoint, does not exceed my gains.

And from this point, as well, you can see why a game might split the community.  It might excel at balancing these factors for a specific subset of people by moving strongly toward one pole, while alienating others because of what must be given up to achieve that effect.....or because they value the other pole more than the designers.

Ultimately, this is why there can be many, many good games -- even _*great*_ games -- but no One True Game.


RC


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 11, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> If you don't like the risk of sudden death (or other inconvenience), then you can simply ...
> 
> Leave the basilisks and so on out of your world.
> 
> ...




*shrug* Or we could have basilisks that work a bit differently. There are options besides "instant petrification on a single die roll" and "no petrification at all."

I like 4E's take, with petrification that takes place over a couple rounds, giving you a chance to do something about it while still killing you very dead if your efforts fail. (Not so much a fan of the bit where fully-petrified people revert to normal when the basilisk dies, however. That part doesn't happen in my games. Kill the basilisk before total petrification and you'll survive--but once you finish turning to stone, you're gone.)


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 11, 2010)

For perspective, let's remember that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and much of the time it's the PCs themselves who are the creatures with SoD abilities!

Hold Person (other than 4e)
Cloudkill
Phantasmal Killer
various creative uses of illusions
Stone to Mud
assassins doing their job (except the S is replaced by a to-hit, then %-age)
lots of high-level stuff e.g. Disintegrate, Power Word-Kill, Death spell, etc.

and a bunch of others I can't think of right now.

My guess is the reason why players like SoD more than DMs is that it's players who are mostly using 'em...

Lanefan


----------



## BryonD (Aug 11, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> Actually, it looks to me like everyone is in agreement that SoDs _do_ need some sort of mitigation, either mechanical (eg, revert to SSSoDs, use APs, etc) or by circumstantial qualifiers (eg, framing the encounter). SoDs generally shouldn't be used as punitive "gotchas", unless that's the point of the game.
> Yup, the rules _aren't_ perfect, SoD (and other) advice _is_ lacking, CR _is_ a blunt instrument at best, etc.



Certainly "gotcha" has a solid basis in D&D history.  But I think that it is much less common today, at least to my experience.  And my games don't run on that basis.

I can only recall one time when there was not some form of mitigation.  I can think of times when the players missed it.  And I can specifically recall my wife's character turning to stone (and ultimately remaining stone forever) in response to a bad roll in what was pretty much a "random" basilisk encounter.  And that death is brought up from time to time with fondness and chuckles.  That was pretty close to without any mitigation, but I elected to through in some "quality statues" right before.  And that could certainly be called "unfair" to use one clue and play "read my mind".  But that wasn't the point.  They were relatively high level and it was a bad roll against a minor threat.  So it goes.  

But, not only was THAT encounter fun, and not only is THAT encounter remembered well, but also, every encounter since has gained a little bit from it because the players know that they are playing in a "organic" (if you will) setting and dangers lurk around every corner.

But, some form of mitigation is certainly very typical.  
If the monsters don't work the way they are supposed to, then they are flat out wrong.  As far as I am concerned, if a creature slows you, it isn't a medusa.  It may be a fun monster.  But it ain't medusa and if you say it is, I consider you flat wrong.

But, having the rules do the monsters right is not the only part of a good game.  It is the DM's job to make a good story and narrative that works for everyone's fun.  Even the guy who gets suprised by the medusa and rolls a 1.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 11, 2010)

Maybe I've missed something, but as I recall from 4e, it typically takes a few rolls to die. Ongoing damage has killed at least one PC of my acquaintance, but a monster could have done the same by beating him when he was down. (Except the monster was busy, and it was "friendly fire" that did 'im in.)

Anyhow, I think it has at least quite nearly done with fast-acting SoD.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 11, 2010)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> *shrug* Or we could have basilisks that work a bit differently. There are options besides "instant petrification on a single die roll" and "no petrification at all."




Sure, there's "advance 1-6 spaces and take a gumdrop, then be 'petrified' until your next move".

You and I can do absolutely whatever we please as GMs.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 12, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> /snip
> 
> *No matter what encounter you have, I think that the players should be able to look back at what came before (with 20/20 hindsight) and say, "Yeah, we coulda/shoulda seen that coming."*  The degree to which this is true increases in proportion to the "footprint" of the creature(s) encountered.
> 
> ...






Reynard said:


> No one is saying this. What people are saying is that there are ways to mitigate SoD, including PCs being prepared for the eventuality (either because they know there's a bodak in the dungeon, or because they have heard tell bodaks sometimes inhabit dungeons). The only one that is suggesting that SoD can only occur if the DM has completely briefed the players beforehand is you.
> 
> It's D&D. Unless a house rule or group decision says otherwise, it can be assumed there will be SoD attacks -- poisons, death gazes and everything in between. Players that for some reason refuse to acknowledge the possibility may find themselves quite put out when they lose a beloved character for want of a relatively cheap and easy protection like anti-toxin or potions of death ward.




I don't know about anyone else Reynard, but it certainly looks like RavenCrowking is advocating that players should ALWAYS have had the opportunity to know that there was a SoD encounter and ALWAYS have sufficient forewarning to be able to be prepared.

To me, that's the rub.  Even if I absolutely know that there is a basilisk in that there dungeon, how do I prepare for it in every single instance?  Enter every room with a mirror, despite the fact that I give up surprise against the twenty other encounters on the off chance that the rumour I heard in a tavern is true?

Heck, smart humanoids will spread rumours of basilisks and other SoD creatures about every lair if that were true.  It's the best tactical defence you could have.  Slows down any invasion to a crawl. 



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> But, some form of mitigation is certainly very typical.
> If the monsters don't work the way they are supposed to, then they are flat out wrong. As far as I am concerned, if a creature slows you, it isn't a medusa. It may be a fun monster. But it ain't medusa and if you say it is, I consider you flat wrong.




Really?  Typical?  I posted four or five different modules with SoD monsters with no forewarning.  Even the medusa in Keep on the Borderlands has no forewarning - she's a trap monster.  Mitigation might happen, I don't deny that - how many basilisks have scrolls of Stone to Flesh in their treasure hordes after all.   But, just because you happen to interpret a particular creature a certain way does not make anyone else wrong.  It just means that you prefer a certain interpretation.

Since, in the Medusa myth, we never actually SEE anyone being turned to stone, what proof do you have that you are not slowed first.  All we know is that if you see a gorgon, you are turned to stone.  Having it occur over 18 seconds instead of instantly isn't exactly shredding the story canon.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 12, 2010)

SoDs are the non-hit point style of D&D combat. In a sense they are, like criticals, more realistic, because hit points are very unrealistic. 

Setting aside the D, and concentrating on the SoD, it's an issue of the swinginess of combat. SoDs are, like critical hits, and high damage attacks in general, very swingy. Gygax's argument against critical hits in the 1e DMG, that they remove the player's capacity to make an informed decision, applies also to SoDs.

Pre-3e has a mix of swingy (SoD, low level combat, high level combat) and non-swingy (mid-level). 3e combat is very swingy with crits, SoDs and high damage attacks. If a grappling monster gets you, you're toast. Unless you had a Freedom of Movement in which case you're fine. Winning initiative is very important. It's very binary. Swingy and binary are, I think, the same concept. 4e goes the opposite direction from 3e and removes all swinginess. No SoDs, damage is low compared to hit points. You always die slow. You see it coming.

Swingy has its advantages. I've enjoyed, as a player, my PC's life depending on a single die roll. It's exciting. Swingy combats are less predictable, more thrilling. But PCs will die more often. As has been said upthread, that's fine if you have measures in place to deal - multiple PCs and/or henchmen, quick char gen, raise dead, etc.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 12, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> It isn't the number of die rolls, it's the ability of the party to make a difference, that matters to me.
> 
> In 4e, those three saves? Your allies can rush up and give you extra chances to succeed, they can pull you out of danger, they can do all sorts of things to make you not die.
> 
> With just one save you either die, or you don't.



I'd echo this. I think putting characters in danger raises the tension of a battle, and the "ticking bomb" of getting to them before something bad happens makes things more dramatic and more interesting. When a 4E Medusa starts turning you to stone the question for the group becomes "how are we going to stop this," in 3X, unless the right spells are available, you sit the battle out and you're done.

I think for the most part, the "three strikes rule" works pretty well. What it does for me is to introduce the tension of imminent death, while still giving people the ability to do something about it... to be a hero (again, all in my opinion, etc...).


----------



## BryonD (Aug 12, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Really?  Typical?  I posted four or five different modules with SoD monsters with no forewarning.  Even the medusa in Keep on the Borderlands has no forewarning - she's a trap monster.



I have already readily agreed that the history of D&D includes "gotcha" as a legacy.  And that it was much more prominent in early D&D.  Also, I still say there is nothing wrong with it as a style of play.

But pointing out examples that clearly fall under the historic example does nothing to undermine my point.



> Since, in the Medusa myth, we never actually SEE anyone being turned to stone, what proof do you have that you are not slowed first.  All we know is that if you see a gorgon, you are turned to stone.  Having it occur over 18 seconds instead of instantly isn't exactly shredding the story canon.



Ok, so as long as every 4e medusa-slowed character is certain to turn to stone within 18 seconds and no further saves or intervention can change that, then I'm completely with you.  
*IF* slowed *THEN* you WILL be stone in a matter of seconds.  

Of course, that isn't how it works in 4E and that isn't remotely what the defense of the 4e approach is advocating.  So in real terms this contribution to the discussion is just disingenuous and less than worthless.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 12, 2010)

SteveC said:


> I'd echo this. I think putting characters in danger raises the tension of a battle, and the "ticking bomb" of getting to them before something bad happens makes things more dramatic and more interesting. When a 4E Medusa starts turning you to stone the question for the group becomes "how are we going to stop this," in 3X, unless the right spells are available, you sit the battle out and you're done.
> 
> I think for the most part, the "three strikes rule" works pretty well. What it does for me is to introduce the tension of imminent death, while still giving people the ability to do something about it... to be a hero (again, all in my opinion, etc...).



I'll repeat, I buy 100% that this works great as a tactical and gamist device.  If that is what you are seeking, then jackpot.

But if "works pretty well" is remotely in the realm of "this recreates Medusa as presented in myth", then it isn't anywhere close.

I'm not saying one is right and the other is badwrongfun.  But there are different approaches.  

Also, I personally reject the truth in "you sit the battle out and you're done".  The CHARACTER is done.  If the player is still there and having fun, then the "you" is completely misplaced.  And speaking as a killer DM, I never have players walk away from the table and rarely could an otherwise unaware third party observer tell which players had dead characters on casual inspection.

Again, for a tactical battlegame with winning and losing, then it is a different matter.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 12, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I don't know about anyone else Reynard, but it certainly looks like RavenCrowking is advocating that players should ALWAYS have had the opportunity to know that there was a SoD encounter and ALWAYS have sufficient forewarning to be able to be prepared.




In old D&D, as in most other games of my acquaintance and as in life, _opportunity_ to investigate and learn is not at all the same thing as _automatically_ being forearmed.

You, and MrMyth, and I think others, seem to expect all necessary intelligence to be delivered to you by parcel post without your having to lift a finger or a gray cell. Moreover, you seem to expect absolute assurances in a game that involves chance.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> To me, that's the rub. Even if I absolutely know that there is a basilisk in that there dungeon, how do I prepare for it in every single instance?




Even if you absolutely know that there is a knight at KB3, how do you prepare for it in every single instance?

That's a different game. It is not one of hidden information, other than what the opponent's plans may be. It does not involve any tosses of the dice.

And yet, the answer to your question is the same: 

It's _your_ move. It's up to you!

That's what the game _is_. If you don't like it, then there are plenty of other pastimes.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 12, 2010)

Originally Posted by *BryonD* 
 But, some form of mitigation is certainly very typical.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Really? Typical? I posted four or five different modules with SoD monsters with no forewarning. Even the medusa in Keep on the Borderlands has no forewarning - she's a trap monster. Mitigation might happen, I don't deny that - how many basilisks have scrolls of Stone to Flesh in their treasure hordes after all.




Really? Mitigation might happen? Something here is typical, all right.



			
				B2 said:
			
		

> She does, in fact, have a special elixir*, a potion of stone to flesh in a small vial, enough liquid to turn six persons, who have been turned to stone, back to normal, but she does not intend to give it away.



Now, it is pretty unlikely that anyone just barging in is not going to look at her -- which is just what the "save" is for. There is a rumor at the Keep that sets up this "trap".

But of course the dashing and daring light cavalry is always in first, especially with the ladies. As the saying has it, "a hussar who is not dead by 30 is a [gold bricker]." The rest of us are thereby prepared not to get suckered when we find the treasure of Tsojcanth.

Or by little grannies bearing lovely ripe apples, for that matter. Or little bedridden grannies with big eyes. Or ... but so it goes. Fantasyland is tough!

Now, an evil cleric might not be above setting actual traps for intruders. That might occur to people, and most such things are a lot more final than getting petrified.

Such, as, oh ... _death_, maybe? Would you prefer a crossbow bolt in your guts?


----------



## BryonD (Aug 12, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> You, and MrMyth, and I think others, seem to expect all necessary intelligence to be delivered to you by parcel post without your having to lift a finger or a gray cell. Moreover, you seem to expect absolute assurances in a game that involves chance.



Hussar likes to restate people's positions for them and turn preferences or tendencies into things like "ALWAYS", in all caps, or removing the obvious context, such as the misrepresentation of my complaint against slowing.  

It is clear that RC meant exactly this kind of opportunity for players (or characters if you prefer) to take responsibility for their destiny.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 12, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Pre-3e has a mix of swingy (SoD, low level combat, high level combat) and non-swingy (mid-level). 3e combat is very swingy with crits, SoDs and high damage attacks.



Remember the old 3.0 default orc with his greataxe?  If an orc straight out of the MM rolled a 20, then you were likely dead up through level 3 or 4 (depending on your class).  I kinda liked that.  The idea of even low level characters having some durability is cool.  But the threat of just getting caved in by a big orc is also fitting at low levels.

In PF they have added cyclops with a 1/day auto 20, and they wield large great axes, it is pretty much an auto 50+ hp damage for one swing a day.  IMO, THAT is a poorly designed mechanic.  It is not bad because it can kill, but because it doesn't provide any narrative compensation and even the roll is removed.  Granted the crit must be confirmed.  But the fun isn't there.  An ettin just took off a PC's head a session ago and that was fun.  But ettin's don't get the free blast.  I've house-ruled the cyclops to an autohit with no crits on the attack that uses the ability.  That works better for me.

Now, if cyclops stories featured an ability to supernaturally cleave heads routinely, then my opinion would certainly change.  And the CR would change as well.



> Swingy has its advantages. I've enjoyed, as a player, my PC's life depending on a single die roll. It's exciting. Swingy combats are less predictable, more thrilling. But PCs will die more often. As has been said upthread, that's fine if you have measures in place to deal - multiple PCs and/or henchmen, quick char gen, raise dead, etc.



Yep.

Or, if you find the simulation side fundamental to the enjoyment, then that also makes it more than fine.  (Just to supplement your list)


----------



## SteveC (Aug 12, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I'll repeat, I buy 100% that this works great as a tactical and gamist device.  If that is what you are seeking, then jackpot.
> 
> But if "works pretty well" is remotely in the realm of "this recreates Medusa as presented in myth", then it isn't anywhere close.
> 
> ...



A few comments:
First, I certainly don't think abandoning save or die turns a game into a tactical or gamist challenge. I tend to think of it as much more narrativist play if anything. I think that save or die fit much better in terms of tactical terms where combat is just a challenge to be overcome and the devil take the hindmost.

As an example, I'd say 3X (or D&D in general) would be a terrible way to simulate to original Medusa story. A system like FATE would be much better. Did that combat work out the way it did because Perseus rolled well? If his player had rolled a "1" that's the end of the story? Really? Not at all in my opinion... he had major plot and story backing behind him.

And I also have to say that when one's character is out of the combat, for me it pretty much *is *like sitting around and doing nothing, especially if the GM is running things from some "realistic" perspective: how are you giving the other players advice? You're unconscious! Even if I am able to interact with the battle, not having a character invested in it means I'm far less interested, and that's the case with pretty much every player I've ever met. Your experience is obviously different (and equally valid), but it is not the norm that I have ever encountered.

As a player, once I know that a GM has a save or die, devil take the hindmost attitude, I'll certainly play in that game, but it changes my attitude: I play with a much more gamist attitude: either I'm going to try and maximize my nova capabilities for combats where instant death is on the line, or I get every scroll and have every resource available so that all of the instant death is basically a minor inconvenience. Both of those play modes can be fun, but they aren't conducive to playing my character as much of a hero. It's funny, because many of the GMs that want the instant death aspects to a campaign also like to complain that their players aren't being heroes. Of course they aren't! If you reward a particular play style, that's what you get.

Save or die just represents a play style that I'm not particularly interested in at this time. I'd say with all of the movement away from it, I'm not alone.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 12, 2010)

"The Chronicle says they shot you in the vestibule."
"Nonsense. They missed my vestibule by inches."



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Gygax's argument against critical hits in the 1e DMG, that they remove the player's capacity to make an informed decision, applies also to SoDs.




That is not so. The limited and specific nature of such dangers is opposed to the "critical hit" systems in question. In, e.g., EPT, C&S (IIRC), Arduin, and RQ, either any or almost any attacker has a chance to lay the mighty low. There were also critical hits in D&D Vol.3 (in the "BITS" rules) and hit locations in Supp. II (out of their full Blackmoor context).

It makes a great difference which foes one fights, the vast majority lacking powers so suddenly decisive as paralysis, petrification or death. 

When it comes to normal (not giant) venomous snakes, the MM2 makes only 25% deadly, and 80% of those give +2 on the save. That makes it automatic for a top-level fighter or cleric. Even with the bonus, though, magic-users and thieves still succumb at least 25% of the time.

The old "crits" business is perennial. Odds are that at this very moment an innocent somewhere on the Internet is proposing to remedy the unrealism of high-level characters at the peak of their powers (full h.p.) being able to pass through a hail of arrows without getting killed.

It has somehow escaped our attention these past 40 years how much better it is to spend years building up the character only to end its career with a sudden, random death by squirrel.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 12, 2010)

The natural corollary to "crits" is "fumbles". 

It's a pretty dramatic death to cut off one's own head.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 12, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I have already readily agreed that the history of D&D includes "gotcha" as a legacy.  And that it was much more prominent in early D&D.  Also, I still say there is nothing wrong with it as a style of play.
> 
> But pointing out examples that clearly fall under the historic example does nothing to undermine my point.
> 
> ...




Do you feel the same way about the changes to the Gorgon then?  Since a gorgon in mythology looks absolutely nothing like a gorgon in D&D, one would think that this would be an equal issue.

Also, is this issue solely confined to the medusa?  Is it only that the medusa is being altered from your interpretation of mythology, but, in other cases the 4e approach of SSSoD is fine?  Or is it all cases of SSSoD is a bad thing in the game?

BTW, disagreeing with someone is not the same as not understanding their point.  RavenCrowking has yet to accuse me of playing silly buggers with his interpretations, so, I'm not really sure if he needs you to champion his point.  He's the one that has claimed that every character in his game will have ample opportunity to know what creatures that character may face in a given location.  That's pretty much quoting him verbatim.  How is that a distortion of his point?

What I do find rather strange is this insistance on painting this as a simulationist vs gamist argument.  SoD is no more or less simulationist than SSSoD.  From a sim/gam standpoint, they're pretty much neutral.

My issue with this has nothing to do with gamestyle and everything to do with how it plays at the table.  I dislike the idea of removing player agency in such a random, arbitrary way.  That's doesn't make me right and you wrong, it's simply a preference BryonD, but, this has very little to do with the construction of a setting.  A setting in which a medusa's gaze slows and then possibly kills you is every bit as simulationist as one in which it possibly kills you outright.

Or, would you argue that 1e snakes are more simulationist (save or die on a bite) than 3e snakes (save or take damage, possibly ability damage)?


----------



## Hussar (Aug 12, 2010)

Oh, and as far as historic examples go, how is Savage Tide an historic example?  The last AP from print Dungeon is now gaming history?

Maure Castle in Dungeon has NUMEROUS SoD effects, although, to be fair, it's certainly based on Old School gaming.

Lords of the Iron Fortress has a SoD trap under the Macguffin - Symbols of Death as I recall.

I'm pretty sure that I could find many, many more examples of SoD being used as a gotcha in very recent modules, so, your point that this is only something confined to the pre-history of the game simply shows a lack of knowledge on your part.

And, for the love of Pete, could we dial back the snark, just a touch.  Good grief BryonD, is it not possible for you to be at the very least polite?  It is certainly not helping to get your point across.  You don't have to be warm and fuzzy, but, wow, dial back the aggro please.

This has been a very interesting thread and I'd hate to see a couple of posters devolve it into yet another snark pit yet again.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Aug 12, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Do you feel the same way about the changes to the Gorgon then?  Since a gorgon in mythology looks absolutely nothing like a gorgon in D&D, one would think that this would be an equal issue.




I'd postulate that the D&D Gorgon being cowlike has something to do with ancient Roman coins which depicted a gorgon on one side and a cow on the reverse.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 12, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> I'd postulate that the D&D Gorgon being cowlike has something to do with ancient Roman coins which depicted a gorgon on one side and a cow on the reverse.




I actually remember reading something about the genesis of the gorgon in D&D.  But, that's the point isn't it?  The D&D gorgon bears pretty much no resemblance to the gorgon of mythology.  BryonD's primary criticism seems to rest on the idea that the 4e Medusa does not accurately reflect the mythological gorgon named Medusa.

I'm wondering if the issue is limited to solely the Medusa or if it's a wider issue with D&D taking liberties with mythology.


----------



## Freakohollik (Aug 12, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Earlier, someone mentioned that SoD in earlier modules was a product of tournament modules.  I disagree.  The modules I listed, other than A1, were not tournament modules.  EX2 Land Beyond the Magic Mirror, an excellent exploration module, has a banshee in the attic of a house.  There is no one in the house, nor is there anyone in the setting who could possible know that that creature is there.
> 
> In The Isle of Dread (the original Expert rules module), there is no way for the PC's to know that the Kopru are living in a particular section of the module and no way to know what they are capable of, since no one has ever gone to where they live and returned.  Yet, they have a pretty devastating SoD ability (actually complete domination - effectively SoD).




I can't defend either of these modules very well since I haven't read them. But here it goes.

EX2:
- Both the EX modules were written for people who have read Alice in Wonderland. I haven't read it, but if you had, would you suspect something nasty in the attic? 
- The adventure is written for level 9-12 PCs. That was more or less top level in 1e. By that level I would expect the PCs to have good saves and magical protections from death. Also check the previous treasure in the module in case you're supposed to find something that could protect you.

And a suspect defense that could partially justify the placement
- Are the PCs supposed to be exploring the house / attic? If not the banshee is a punishment, though likely too harsh of one.

X1:
- No one has ever returned from where they live. That means don't go there. Modules put in warning signs like this all the time. The two most common are skeletons outside a room and literally a sign that says do not enter.
- I believe that this module really has no guidance on what to do on the isle of dread. So, without any reason to go to the land of no return, putting SoD monsters there is a clear punishment for stupid or overzealous PCs.

It's also possible that these monsters are not appropriate where they have been placed in the modules. But, I would blame the author, not the rule.

Lord of the Iron Fortress: At 15-17, this is a high level adventure. It is fair trap for the level of the adventure. That is a very reasonable place to expect a trap (See "Raiders of the Lost Ark"). However, if I was running this adventure for a group of inexperienced players, I would make the trap something less deadly if it would kill them.

Savage Tide: Didn't read it as I generally don't like Paizo adventures. Without any specific example, I can't respond to general criticism.

Maure Castle: Awesome adventure. Funny you bring this one up as playing through this is what taught me to how to survive in an old school dungeon. I died once or twice on the first floor, then caught on to the danger of old school dungeons and high level play and didn't die at all in the last 3 levels (I did not find Kerzit).


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 12, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> The natural corollary to "crits" is "fumbles".
> 
> It's a pretty dramatic death to cut off one's own head.




Happened to one character in one of my RQ2 games. Took a mighty swing with his greatsword and fumbled - fumble type... crit self. Rolled location... head.

Oops!

Cue much laughter around the table, and on we went


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 12, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I don't know about anyone else Reynard, but it certainly looks like RavenCrowking is advocating that players should ALWAYS have had the opportunity to know that there was a SoD encounter and ALWAYS have sufficient forewarning to be able to be prepared.




Then you mis-read.  Or I am mis-reading you.

SoD creatures should be treated like anything else:

The GM looks at the element's properties, and then determines

1.  Do I want to include this?  Am I OK with the consequences if the PCs fail?

- Ex.  I have often said in the past, "Don't include save the world scenarios if you are unprepared to accept that the PCs fail and the world is not saved."  Or words to that effect.

- Ex.  If you don't want the PCs to obtain Whelm, Wave, and Black Razor, you shouldn't put them into a scenario.

- Ex.  If you don't like orcs, don't use them.  And don't use half-orcs.

- Ex.  If you don't think warforged ninjas fit in the campaign milieu, don't allow them to be used.  Likewise teletubby pirates.​
2.  What "footprint" does it leave on the world?  Is there a way to build suspense/anticipation?

- Ex.  Aboleth are tunneling under Selby-by-the-Water, attempting to collapse and flood the city.  Footprints:  A past historical partial collapse, the sounds of digging (from deeper) in the sewers, a more recent partial collapse, the ghost of Amoreth the Arcane (who died while trying to stop them) can be discovered and consulted.

Ex.  Giant spiders live in Mirkwood.  Footprints:  Eyes seen at night, thick sticky cobwebs from tree to tree (but not along the path).  Extra:  Beorn and Gandolf warn you to NOT LEAVE THE PATH.

Ex.  Go to my megadungeon thread (if you can find it), and see the first steps.  Coming up with names of special places, treasures, and creatures, so that I can seed rumours of them long before the PCs reach them.

Ex.  Read any book on writing.  Look up the term "foreshadowing".  Effective story telling requires it, and so does effective GMing.​
3.  Do I want to change this thing in any way, to fit the campaign mileu better, to make it more surprising, to make it harder or easier to predict or know?

Ex.  The bugbears in the Night Ruins are owl-headed humanoids.  This is to make them scarier....the players cannot easily identify them, and thus cannot easily make the "unknown" into the "known".

Ex.  The demon in the megadungeon is limited to a given library; he wants to use adventurers as pawns to escape.  The intelligent psionic ooze Blott wants his drugs; he wants to use adventurers to get them from town.  In both cases, this allows the GM to use a tougher monster earlier, so that the PCs can come to the realization -- and dread -- that there will be, sooner or later, a real confrontation with these tough customers.

Ex.  A module includes a new magic item or monster.  Same reason as the bugbears were changed -- it makes it harder to make the "unknown" into the "known", thus increasing challenge as well as player interest (and uneasiness).​
The means for forewarning should always exist, although the likelihood of them getting used is questionable.  For instance, in 1e, 2e, and 3e at least, I could potentially learn many of the dungeon's secrets through the careful use of divination magic.  1e has specific rules for consulting sages; 3e has Knowledge checks.  Likewise, RCFG has divinatory abilities, sages, and skills that might help.....Clever players use these things.

But saying that, from hindsight, what happens/what is encountered should make sense in no way implies that the same should be true using foresight.  The same should be *possible* using foresight, for any element of the game.  But foresight fails in a way that hindsight does not.

This is similar to a good riddle.  A good riddle is one which, once you know the answer, the meaning of the riddle itself becomes obvious.  No matter how perplexing it was before, when the answer is known there is an "Of course!" moment.  That "Of course!" moment means that the riddle could have been solved before the answer was given, but it by no means guarantees it.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 12, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Do you feel the same way about the changes to the Gorgon then?  Since a gorgon in mythology looks absolutely nothing like a gorgon in D&D, one would think that this would be an equal issue.






			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> I'd postulate that the D&D Gorgon being cowlike has something to do with ancient Roman coins which depicted a gorgon on one side and a cow on the reverse.






Hussar said:


> I actually remember reading something about the genesis of the gorgon in D&D.  But, that's the point isn't it?  The D&D gorgon bears pretty much no resemblance to the gorgon of mythology.




You can imagine how surprised I was to learn that the D&D gorgon was inspired by a creature from Medieval bestiaries!  And, while I do have reference to the metal-scaled breath-weapon bull-gorgon in references at home, I cannot easily find one on the InterWeb to point you to.

This is just an example of the early D&D writers doing better research than one might expect.  In my own researches into folklore and mythology, and even into early fantasy fiction, I am often surprised that something I thought a mere D&Dism turns out not to be.

Gygax was remarkably literate and well-read!



> RavenCrowking has yet to accuse me of playing silly buggers with his interpretations, so, I'm not really sure if he needs you to champion his point.  He's the one that has claimed that every character in his game will have ample opportunity to know what creatures that character may face in a given location.  That's pretty much quoting him verbatim.  How is that a distortion of his point?




See my previous post.

They understood what I was trying to say.  



RC


----------



## BryonD (Aug 12, 2010)

SteveC said:


> A few comments:
> First, I certainly don't think abandoning save or die turns a game into a tactical or gamist challenge.



I don't think abandoning save or die turns the game into a tactical or gamist challenge.

But the "three strikes rule", as you described is very much a tactical and gamist system.  It isn't the removal of SoD I was commenting on so much as the replacement you advocate.

And, without SoD, regardless of whether the game is "gamist", it certainly is not "simulationist".  You can not defeat the Medusa of myth without SoD (or taking it a step further to DM fiat, you saw Medusa, you turn to stone, no save).


----------



## BryonD (Aug 12, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Good grief BryonD, is it not possible for you to be at the very least polite?  It is certainly not helping to get your point across.  You don't have to be warm and fuzzy, but, wow, dial back the aggro please.



Hussar, you know full well that I generally avoid debates with you.  I've made that clear in the past.  And I've clearly explained in the past that it is because you, time after time, go back to the same well of putting words into other people's mouths and completely lying about what their position actually is.

As long as you are going to lie about people's positions then you have no room to complain about politeness or aggro.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 12, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I don't think abandoning save or die turns the game into a tactical or gamist challenge.
> 
> But the "three strikes rule", as you described is very much a tactical and gamist system.  It isn't the removal of SoD I was commenting on so much as the replacement you advocate.
> 
> And, without SoD, regardless of whether the game is "gamist", it certainly is not "simulationist".  You can not defeat the Medusa of myth without SoD (or taking it a step further to DM fiat, you saw Medusa, you turn to stone, no save).




Please quote me the myth that says killing Medusa will not save a victim who is _in the middle of_ petrification. Or that specifies exactly how many seconds petrification takes.

Last I heard, nobody was in the process of being petrified at the moment of Medusa's death--all her victims had been fully turned to stone before Perseus got there.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 12, 2010)

Even though I like SoD and don't much like 4E, I actually don't mind SSSoD as long as a) it makes sense from a "simulation" PoV and b) it's not done to coddle stupid or careless PCs. If a bodak first paralyzes, then drains and finally kills with it's death gaze, I am ok with that as long as each of those stages is a real effect not just a "strike".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 12, 2010)

Reynard said:


> Even though I like SoD and don't much like 4E, I actually don't mind SSSoD as long as a) it makes sense from a "simulation" PoV and b) it's not done to coddle stupid or careless PCs. If a bodak first paralyzes, then drains and finally kills with it's death gaze, I am ok with that as long as each of those stages is a real effect not just a "strike".




Agreed.

And there is nothing wrong with having a range of monsters, some with SoD, some with SSSoD, and some with SSSSSSSSoD.

The "three strikes" mechanic of 4e is a good idea, IMHO, even if I am not necessarily happy with every implementation of that idea.  

But, then, as I said upthread, it very much depends upon where you sit in terms of narrative control vs. loss of that control.  I have no problem with people wanting more narrative control in their games; I have a real problem with people saying that effects which add consequence offer nothing and/or should be removed from D&D.  

This is another one of those changes that I think weakens brand identity, although (obviously) YMMV on that.


RC


----------



## BryonD (Aug 12, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I actually remember reading something about the genesis of the gorgon in D&D.  But, that's the point isn't it?  The D&D gorgon bears pretty much no resemblance to the gorgon of mythology.  BryonD's primary criticism seems to rest on the idea that the 4e Medusa does not accurately reflect the mythological gorgon named Medusa.
> 
> I'm wondering if the issue is limited to solely the Medusa or if it's a wider issue with D&D taking liberties with mythology.



It has amused me from time to time that the Gorgon monster is unrelated to Gorgons.

But that is not the problem.  Ultimately the gorgon is just a monster that happens to have that name.  Clearly the pertification theme is borrowed over, but it is still a completely different monster.  Not everyone named Hank is a home run hitting hall of famer.

Really, if you want an example of "wrongness" that I accept, the fact that "medusa" is a race in D&D would be much better.

Medusa in 4E is supposed to be Medusa and it is wrong.
You could easily play 4E with the house-rule that if you fail a single save against her gaze you instantly turn to stone.  
You could re-introduce SoD throughout 4E.

But the debate at hand isn't 4E itself, but the attitude on SoD, and clearly the design idea behind 4E supports anti-SoD.

You could have a monster in 3E called the Medufa, or any other name you wanted.  And give it all the exact abilities of the 4E monster called "Medusa".  There is nothing wrong with that.  Slow/para/stone is not an "unfun" mechanic.  

And if in your game, in any system, you have a 4e style "medusa" creature as a companion to a SoD Medusa, then my position is immediately resolved.  
The creature itself is fine.  It is claiming it is "medusa" that fails.

That said, I'm also a fan of SoD in general.  I like Finger of Death.  I like having adventurers who live in a seriously dangerous world and the potential for instant death may be around any corner.

That is a separate point from : You can't do Medusa right without SoD.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 12, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Please quote me the myth that says killing Medusa will not save a victim who is _in the middle of_ petrification. Or that specifies exactly how many seconds petrification takes.
> 
> Last I heard, nobody was in the process of being petrified at the moment of Medusa's death--all her victims had been fully turned to stone before Perseus got there.



Please quote me an example from myth of anyone ever speaking a single word, much less taking a single action between seeing Medusa and becomign fully stone.

Please go out into public and start asking random people who much time a person who has seen a medusa has to act prior to turning to stone.  The popular understanding of the legend is clear.  If you want to contort that popular legend to fit your mechanical needs, then fine.  I don't.  That is pretty much a solid definition of the difference between gamist and simulationist.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 12, 2010)

Reynard said:


> Even though I like SoD and don't much like 4E, I actually don't mind SSSoD as long as a) it makes sense from a "simulation" PoV and b) it's not done to coddle stupid or careless PCs. If a bodak first paralyzes, then drains and finally kills with it's death gaze, I am ok with that as long as each of those stages is a real effect not just a "strike".




You posted this while I was posting about "Medufa".  
I certainly 100% agree that this kind of mechanic can be very cool.

I just want it alongside SoD and I want my game to fit the simulation.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 12, 2010)

Minotaur is also a race.
And every edition it always has immunity to mazes.  I always find that amusing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 12, 2010)

An aside, related to a thought I just had.  SoD is one thing, but I have no problem with SSSoD, where the SSS is not three strikes, but three chances to fail.  That poison?  Still active in your system.

That is a good way of having something be truly deadly, without having to make the save impossible to make.  It also gives the PCs (depending upon how often the save must be made) a chance to potentially do something about it (i.e., neutralize poison or the like).

I like the ideas in 3e about poisons and diseases; I am happy with the Labyrinth Lord suggestion of a poison doing XdY damage over Z rounds.  I am very happy with all of these options existing within the same game system!


RC


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 12, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Please quote me an example from myth of anyone ever speaking a single word, much less taking a single action between seeing Medusa and becomign fully stone.




You're the one claiming the 4E interpretation is somehow inconsistent with the original concept of Medusa. I have made no similar claims about the pre-4E interpretation. Therefore it is on you to prove that the 4E approach is wrong, not on me to prove it right. The way I see it, the legend doesn't say a word about the details of the process, and therefore the game designer has plenty of leeway to come up with something that works both conceptually and mechanically.

Now, shall we discuss how well D&D's demons and devils match up to their mythological equivalents (those that have them)? How many dragons in real-world legend were color-coded? How many of them breathed lightning, acid, or cold? Does the mythological Asgard really look like rivers of earth churning through empty space? Was the old Greek idea of Tartarus actually a chain of red-glowing pearls in a black void?

I consider verisimilitude quite important in game design, and I have a number of beefs with 4E's designers on that point. SSSoD is not one of them, however. It is merely a different take (a more mechanically convenient one, true) on the concept of how petrification works within the game world. You don't like it, that's your privilege, but it's just as valid as the old way.

(And when you apply it to other areas, such as poison, SSSoD makes far more sense than the old save-or-die. Instantly lethal poison is so rare as... well, as far as I know there isn't any such thing. Hydrogen cyanide gas will knock you out in seconds but takes a couple minutes to kill; if your companions had the antidote, they'd have time to administer it. Even sarin gives you a minute or so in which to jab a needle full of atropine into your chest. Most animal venoms take many minutes before you even feel the effects, and as for the sort of poisons people put on weapons in medieval times, they'd take hours if they worked at all.)



BryonD said:


> Please go out into public and start asking random people who much time a person who has seen a medusa has to act prior to turning to stone.




I predict the response I'd get is, "Medu-what?" And for those who know what Medusa is, "Uh... I dunno." Probably, on sufficient questioning, they would shrug and say not very much, but I doubt they would object if I suggested it might take a few seconds.


----------



## Rel (Aug 12, 2010)

I think that the general level of confrontation in this thread should go down.  A lot.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 12, 2010)

RC - Ok, I understand a bit better now.  Thanks for clearing that up.  Also thanks for not going to route of accusing me of lying or other underhanding things.  It's nice to talk to people who can retain a level of professionalism.  

I have a bit of a counter analogy though.  Every day, virtually everyone reading this post gets into a car and drives somewhere.  Or, if not every day, at least lots.  Yet, we all know that there are impaired drivers on the road.  We know that for an absolute fact.  So, we drive carefully and we put on a seatbelt.  Fair enough.  We take reasonable precautions.

Yet, despite that, I'll bet that someone reading this has been rear ended at a stop light at some point in their life by an impaired driver.

Is the victim here in any way at fault?  I would say no, and I imagine so would everyone else.

Yet, the idea that's being put forth is that if I know that there are SoD monsters in an area, I should be absolutely prepared at all times, and (as has been mentioned in this thread) if it gets to the point where I'm making saving throws, I've screwed up.

I'm not really convinced this is fair.

Or, to give you another real world example from my own experience.  Some years ago I visited Cambodia to see Angkor Wat.  ((AMAZING EXPERIENCE!!))  While sitting in a cafe in Siem Riep, the small town that services the tourists for Angkor, the waiters became very, very agitated.  They rushed inside and ran out with long sticks and began beating the ever living crap out of a bush not ten feet from where I was sitting.  A few minutes later, they pull up this honking huge bloody snake that had been in the bush.

Now, I know that there are poisonous snakes in Cambodia.  But, real life means that all sorts of surprises can be lurking around the corner.  

Unless the players actually are forewarned about the the location of the SoD creature, within a fair degree of accuracy, the forewarning is mostly useless.  There's no way to be 100% prepared 100% of the time.  Yes, I know that there are poisonous snakes in the forest and I don't go out of my way to go kicking at holes in the ground, but, death by snakestep isn't exactly out of the realm of possibility either.

Yes, I totally agree that creatures should be foreshadowed.  Makes for great games.  But, unless the foreshadowing is very specific, it's not really going to be adequate for the adventuring party.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 12, 2010)

Hussar: Why do you want to be 100% prepared or, as you put it upthread, "safe"?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 12, 2010)

Hussar said:


> RC - Ok, I understand a bit better now.  Thanks for clearing that up.  Also thanks for not going to route of accusing me of lying or other underhanding things.  It's nice to talk to people who can retain a level of professionalism.




You're welcome.

I try to follow my own endorsement (Take what is written in the best possible way).  I have to admit that, given the number of times that we've come to loggerheads about the same issues, you still don't know where I stand on this.  My main mantras are always the same:

1.  If the DM has players, he can run the game any way he likes.  If the players don't like it, they shouldn't play.

2.  Complaining isn't helpful.  Start your own game if you don't like the one you are in.

3.  Life is too short for bad games.

4.  Foreshadowing is vitally important to encounter design.

5.  Don't fudge.  If you want the players to maintain narrative control when the dice are rolled, use a system (such as AP) that does so above-board.

6.  Encounter design =/= fudging.

7.  It is the player's job to seek out information.

8.  It is the player's job to decide what risks to confront.

You might disagree with me (and I am sure you do on some of them), but I think that I am pretty consistent in what I'm spewing out here.   



> I have a bit of a counter analogy though.  Every day, virtually everyone reading this post gets into a car and drives somewhere.  Or, if not every day, at least lots.  Yet, we all know that there are impaired drivers on the road.  We know that for an absolute fact.  So, we drive carefully and we put on a seatbelt.  Fair enough.  We take reasonable precautions.
> 
> Yet, despite that, I'll bet that someone reading this has been rear ended at a stop light at some point in their life by an impaired driver.
> 
> Is the victim here in any way at fault?  I would say no, and I imagine so would everyone else.




Okay.  I can see this.  Here is my counter (again, one you should be expecting from long association with me here):

"Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

The problem here is the belief that there must be a "fault" (in the assigning blame sense) for something bad to happen.  But that's not true in a game with random elements.  Just as, when you got into the car, you accepted the risks of doing so, the players accept the risks of putting their characters in harm's way.

Players try to ameliorate the risks as best they can -- as you do when you put on your seat belt -- and DMs try to present the risks in ways that are both interesting and entertaining.  

Again, it comes down to how much narrative control you require, or how much tension you require.  No one is all one thing or the other.  For me, the metric is that what happens "makes sense" from hindsight, and could therefore have been predicted if one knew then what one knows now.  

And, I think, one has to accept that sometimes the GM knows why things are happening, and you just don't have enough info to figure it out, or you're being slow, or whatever.  If the GM is generally worthy of trust, it is crass (at best) to suddenly cease to trust him just because you can't tell what's happening right now.

Frex, in a Modern game, the chances of running into an impaired driver might be slightly higher than in real life, but they should be comparable.  *Sometimes* getting from Point A to Point B might be a challenge -- it is in the real world, too -- but the challenge presented should make sense.  And it should exist as part of the milieu, not simply to frustrate player choices.

As a player, I have lost many, many characters.  Sometimes these were to failed saves.  Sometimes these were because I made choices that didn't allow saves at all.  Sometimes, I delved too deep.  Sometimes I got greedy.  Sometimes I got unlucky.

Unless this was with a bad DM (and it has happened, either because the DM was inexperienced, or because he had a narrative he wanted to play out) none of these things were the DM's fault.  They were my fault.  They were not my fault in a "Bad player!  Bad!  Now go to your room and feel guilty!" sense.  They were my fault in a "These are the consequences of your choices" sense.

It is far too easy to cry *Bad DM*!

But, IME anyway, it is a far better game if you do not.  I try to follow my own endorsement:  "Take what happens in the game in the best possible way.  Have fun.  Help others have fun.  Don't pout."  

I won't play with whiny gits.  Life is too short for bad games.

You shouldn't play under circumstances you don't enjoy.  If you don't like SoD, don't play in games that use it.  But, if you choose to play in those games, don't whine when it happens.  The same mantras apply.



RC


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 12, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Unless the players actually are forewarned about the the location of the SoD creature, within a fair degree of accuracy, the forewarning is mostly useless.  There's no way to be 100% prepared 100% of the time.  Yes, I know that there are poisonous snakes in the forest and I don't go out of my way to go kicking at holes in the ground, but, death by snakestep isn't exactly out of the realm of possibility either.
> 
> Yes, I totally agree that creatures should be foreshadowed.  Makes for great games.  But, unless the foreshadowing is very specific, it's not really going to be adequate for the adventuring party.




Okay, having argued the anti-SoD side to the point of moderator warning, I'm now going to turn around and argue the other way.

To a certain extent you are right; it's not reasonable to expect the PCs to take extensive precautions purely on the basis that a given creature exists somewhere out in the world. However, foreshadowing should be much more useful than that.

Let's take the typical case: The PCs are headed off to the dungeon of the week in order to rescue the hapless Prince MacGuffin, who is desperately hoping that they both arrive in time and don't start quoting Monty Python when they do ("I'm sorry, I thought your son was a lady." "I can understand that!").

The PCs do some investigating and discover clues pointing to the existence of bodaks in said dungeon. They don't know exactly where, and it's not positive proof, but it's a strong possibility that going to that dungeon is going to entail facing bodaks.

This is the point where the PCs should be taking extensive precautions. Look around each corner with a mirror. When opening a door, face away from it and hold up a mirror to see over your shoulder. Avoid facing doorways into areas you haven't cleared and secured, in case a bodak steps out of one. Pay special attention to unexplained, unmarked corpses.

If the PCs take these precautions, they should be fairly safe from insta-death. Of course, there will be other risks involved... if you face away from all unsecured doorways, for example, other monsters might sneak up behind you. So these precautions are not no-brainers and there are tradeoffs.

All in all, I think I'd say that the big issue with save-or-die is treating it as a common mechanical element rather than a truly extraordinary threat. I think DMs and game designers are often misled by the existence of the save into supposing that it's no big deal if PCs are occasionally targeted out of the blue with these effects. Hence you get the situation described upthread, where the party rogue goes to scout out an area, happens across a bodak with no warning, and drops dead.

IMO, if one is going to design or use a critter with a save-or-die attack, one should think of that attack as an auto-kill and plan accordingly. The saving throw is just a tease, a last shred of hope for a sadistic Dungeon Master to dangle in front of a dying PC. 

[size=-2]_Note: This is not intended as any kind of criticism of sadistic Dungeon Masters. Quite the contrary._[/size]


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 12, 2010)

Also, is anyone else interested in the fact that according to this poll, DMs are overall opposed to save-or-die while players seem to be in favor?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 12, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Also, is anyone else interested in the fact that according to this poll, DMs are overall opposed to save-or-die while players seem to be in favor?




Yes.  It confirms (as far as it can, which isn't far) what I experience at the table.

Also, nice analysis in your last post.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Aug 12, 2010)

Reynard said:


> Hussar: Why do you want to be 100% prepared or, as you put it upthread, "safe"?




Because, mathematically speaking, save or die is very rarely just save or die, it's usually just die.  An unprepared party of five PC's meets a medusa has to make five saving throws, possibly ten saving throws if there is a surprise round, before their first action.  The chances that someone will fail that saving throw is too great IMO.

If the chance of failing the save is even 25%, odds say that someone is going to die in the first round if they are caught unprepared.

That is too powerful of an ability.  Never mind the skyrocketing odds of failure if you add a second or (shudder) a third SoD effect to the same encounter.

To me, this is the whole problem in a nutshell.  

RC - I mostly agree with your 1-8, although, I do think that massaging the situation during design with a view of increasing the odds of a particular outcome is a form of fudging, but, that's a semantic debate that's not going to go anywhere.  I can totally see your point, I just don't agree with it.  



			
				RC said:
			
		

> The problem here is the belief that there must be a "fault" (in the assigning blame sense) for something bad to happen. But that's not true in a game with random elements. Just as, when you got into the car, you accepted the risks of doing so, the players accept the risks of putting their characters in harm's way.




But, there's been multiple posts in this thread that anyone who suffers from a SoD effect is at fault.  That they should have been "more careful" or if the only time a saving throw is called for is when the players screwed up.  I'm not saying you're saying this, but, it is a pretty common opinion in this thread.

Sure, I put my character in harms way.  Totally accept the fact that my character might die.  Got no real beefs with that.  Heck, just lost a PC last week to disease in a 4e game (with a second character, not mine, buying it in the same encounter).  Fair enough.  Poopie happens.

My beef is the binary nature of SoD.  SoD monsters are almost always one trick ponies and if you negate the SoD, the encounter is a joke.  Medusa's not a bad one actually because at least a medusa has some back up abilities.  But a bodak?  Pshaw.  Basilisk?  Cockatrice?  That stupid faerie that kills you if you look at it (whose name I'm totally blanking on)?  All one trick ponies that become, IMO, anticlimactic as soon as the party negates the baddie's one big gun.



			
				RC said:
			
		

> I won't play with whiny gits. Life is too short for bad games.




See, this is the attitude that flies up my nose.  If I don't like SoD I'm suddenly a whiney git?  I don't get to decide on my own that I think SoD is piss poor game design?  If I play with a DM who likes SoD, I just have to suck it up, or leave the game?

I dunno, I play with people I can actually have a conversation with.  That I can bring up concerns and discuss them rationally.  Maybe it's because I play with almost all DM's and mostly always have.  Very, very few of my groups have been made up of gamers with little or no DMing experience.  I've found that, by and large, as evidenced by this thread, a lot of DM's really don't like SoD effects, so that, even if they use them in the game, a few words at the waffle house after the game is usually all it takes.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 12, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Or, to give you another real world example from my own experience.  Some years ago I visited Cambodia to see Angkor Wat.  ((AMAZING EXPERIENCE!!))  While sitting in a cafe in Siem Riep, the small town that services the tourists for Angkor, the waiters became very, very agitated.  They rushed inside and ran out with long sticks and began beating the ever living crap out of a bush not ten feet from where I was sitting.  A few minutes later, they pull up this honking huge bloody snake that had been in the bush.




(1)  I envy your experience.  I'd love to visit Angkor Wat (it's my computer wallpaper!).

(2)  I hope your appreciate how well planned that encounter was.  The DM arranged for you to encounter a SoD creature without having to make a save, thus foreshadowing the potential of similar encounters in the ruins.  Clearly, this is a DM who thinks about what kind of "footprints" various creatures leave in the milieu!  And the reaction of the NPCs really sold it -- even though they didn't have to make saves themselves!  



RC


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 12, 2010)

Reynard said:


> Hussar: Why do you want to be 100% prepared or, as you put it upthread, "safe"?




Reynard, I don't think Hussar or I are suggesting that. The topic came out from the other end of the discussion, in fact - when situations were pointed out where characters died to SoD effects, there were a number of responses that it was the DMs fault for not warning the players, or the players fault for not being prepared. 

Admittedly, I think that's part of the reason the discussion is going in circles. Points and counterpoints are being raised by people on the same side of the discussion (pro-SoD or anti-SoD) that are in direct conflict with each other. 

As I see it, there are several quite different reasons why people can like SoD, and styles of campaigns that it suits: 

1) 'Old school' campaigns where, yeah, death can lurk around any corner, and if you walk in a room and die, you just break out a character sheet and some dice and keep at it. 

2) Campaigns that are _about _the challenge. Save or Die is just one of the many dangers PCs face, and this style of game is about going up against such deadly effects and coming out on top. 

3) Campaigns were Save or Die is simply appropriate to someone's personal mythos. You see a medusa and you turn to stone because _that is how is should be_, and anything else, to them, just doesn't feel right. 

4) Campaigns that really want to have the PCs experience a certain level of the myth themselves. Facing Medusa is as much about knowing what you face, and taking the appropriate precautions, as actually winning the battle. Just being able to walk in there, stare her in the eye, and survive through sheer force of will... isn't the story they are looking to tell. 

Hence why the discussion has been going in circles - for some of these campaigns, knowing the dangers of the SoD is itself fundamental to it, while for others, the very possibility of being surprised and struck dead is part of the fun. 

And, again, this is one of the reasons I'm a fan of having these as an optional section of the rules with guidance on the different ways to use them. Sometimes I could be in the mood for certain styles of play. 

And, as well, I don't think there is anything wrong with enjoying any of these style of campaigns, or enjoying other ones that SoD isn't as appropriate for. Or enjoying campaigns along these lines and not wanting SoD for other reasons entirely!

I think the most important conclusion from this discussion really is about communication. The DM and players should be on the same page as far as what they like in a game. I don't think it quite needs to get to the level RC suggests of narrative control vs tension (I don't think such a sliding scale is necessarily accurate)... but I do think this is one of several areas where it is good to reach a common understanding before the game actually begins.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 12, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I can totally see your point, I just don't agree with it.




That's as much as I hope for.



> But, there's been multiple posts in this thread that anyone who suffers from a SoD effect is at fault.  That they should have been "more careful" or if the only time a saving throw is called for is when the players screwed up.  I'm not saying you're saying this, but, it is a pretty common opinion in this thread.




Language is imprecise.  People sometimes have to grope for the wording that conveys what they mean, esp. when trying to do so with people who think differently.  And people use SoD in different ways.



> My beef is the binary nature of SoD.  SoD monsters are almost always one trick ponies and if you negate the SoD, the encounter is a joke.




I've addressed the "binary nature", both in terms of that nature being illusory, and in terms of narrative control, upthread.  There is nothing wrong with wanting more narrative control.  Again, for games where I want this, I prefer an AP mechanic as in C7's Doctor Who, but tastes vary.

And I can guarantee you that your "one trick pony" can be used to better effect.  We discussed this in the past with the rust monster, where I listed a number of other ways I'd used them in my own campaigns.  The same is true, without a doubt, about bodaks etc.



> See, this is the attitude that flies up my nose.




Remember that "best possible reading" mantra?  Let's see if we can apply it here.



> If I don't like SoD I'm suddenly a whiney git?




Nope.  That just means you don't like SoD.



> I don't get to decide on my own that I think SoD is piss poor game design?




Nope.  You get to decide on your own....or not....as you prefer.



> If I play with a DM who likes SoD, I just have to suck it up, or leave the game?




Not exactly.

You play with people you can actually have a conversation with.  That you can bring up concerns with and discuss them rationally.  You tell the GM that you dislike SoD effects, and you calmly, rationally, and politely explain exactly why.  The GM, however, informs you that, although he understands your reasons, his game will include SoD effects.

At that point, you either decide to play in that game, or not.

If you still decide to play, _*and then you become upset when a SoD effect appears*_, esp. if you disrupt the game for everyone else, you are a whiny git.  You knew what you were playing, you agreed to play it.

Similarly, if I agreed to play a game without SoD, and I started whining because Medusa didn't stone people on the first failed save, I would be a whiny git.

Being a whiny git isn't about what you like; it is about how you react to what you don't like.  It is especially about how you react to what you don't like after you've already agreed to it.

"Take what happens in the game in the best possible way. Have fun. Help others have fun. Don't pout." is an easy mantra for mature players to follow.  You can follow it even if things happen that you don't like.  It's the difference between losing and chess and shaking your opponent's hand, or losing at chess and tossing the board across the room.

I won't play games with whiny gits.  I hope you never have to.

In my experience, fewer than 1% of gamers are whiny gits.  I hope you experience even fewer.


RC


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 12, 2010)

BryonD said:


> And, without SoD, regardless of whether the game is "gamist", it certainly is not "simulationist". You can not defeat the Medusa of myth without SoD (or taking it a step further to DM fiat, you saw Medusa, you turn to stone, no save).




Well, I think thats part of the issue here. In D&D, you don't fight the Medusa of myth. 

You fight a medusa, one of an entire race of such creatures. The very fact that you _do_ get a save to avoid death is already breaking with the simulation of the true curse represented in the myth. 

This is sorta along the lines of what I mentioned before - if SoD (or even more extreme effects) was truly just the domain of really mythic, unique, rare creatures... that's one thing. But when it is can be found in a variety of places, or on any spellcaster, is when it feels less appropriate to me. 

And again - that's just personal preference. But that's why I can feel that a medusa that turns people to stone over several rounds succeeds just as much at simulating the core concepts of the legend without having to mirror it _precisely_ - because D&D _isn't_ greek myth, and there are differences already in the picture from the beginning. 

At the same time, I do understand the desire to have it match your view of the myth as closely as possible. Honestly, everyone probably has a version of each monster that works ideally for them. I just don't think it is as simple a matter of one being a 'true simulation' and the other being a 'purely gamist construct'. 

There are a lot more factors that go into it than those two, including pros and cons in both directions - both in terms of roleplaying elements, as well as purely mechanical ones.


----------



## Jacob Marley (Aug 12, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Also, is anyone else interested in the fact that according to this poll, DMs are overall opposed to save-or-die while players seem to be in favor?




I voted "I am a player: yes for save or die". For my point of view, as a player, character death is not a big concern. This opinion has been shared by the vast majority of people I have gamed with. A few people I play with character death almost seems to be their goal in playing. 

Why is this? Well, when we were running 1st Edition we tended to play multiple characters - not necessarily in the same adventure but in the same campaign. This was the assumed norm. While my character Hans was out exploring Castle Greyhawk, my other characters were celebrating previous adventures at the Green Dragon Inn. If Hans died it was easy enough to bring a new character into the game - they were already there. In addition, combats were rather quick - at least in comparison to later editions. When Hans died I didn't have to wait long for the rest of the party to high-tail it out of the dungeon and back to the safety lol of the City of Greyhawk. In addition, there were always a number of henchmen and hirelings I could play should the rest of the party decide to further explore the dungeon.

As we transitioned to 3rd Edition (and later 4th Edition and Pathfinder) we moved away from the character stable concept - for numerous reasons - and toward the "traditional" party four (five). However, the lack of concern for character death remained. Over the years I have noticed with a number of the people I game with that they already have the next character concept/class/prestige class/race/whatever ready to play when their current character dies. There is a strong desire to try out the next cool thing. 

From a DMing point of view character death creates a number of problems. When Hans died there were a number of hooks he was pursuing, he had information that other players did not have, he had developed a set of allies and enemies unique to him. All the work the DM put in developing these elements died with him. This is not to say that the information is totally lost, rather, that this information is now put on the back-burner until another character interacts with it. 

Now, these experiences may be universal or unique to me - I don't know.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 12, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> As I see it, there are several quite different reasons why people can like SoD, and styles of campaigns that it suits:



I think there are three justifications for SoD:
1) The thrill of the big gamble.
2) Simulationism. What is being simulated here is mythology/fantasy fiction. Or rather, aspects of it.
3) Gamist challenge. The challenge is in scouting and/or gathering information so the PCs can identify, and presumably avoid, monsters with SoDs. This is really a justification for any very dangerous encounter existing in the game world, not just those with SoDs.

Imo, the first is the only really sound justification, the others are significantly flawed. As you say, the medusa of myth doesn't give a save and is a single creature not a species. Personally I don't think non-rules based gamism works. It's not a real challenge, it just comes down to a GM call. Win? Fail? GM decides. Again there's no reason why there should be a save. Upthread Verdande expressed the view that if your character is rolling a save, then you, the player, have failed. Well, why should randomness enter into it then? That can only allow the inferior player to prosper, from this gamist perspective. So why allow a save?

#2 and #3 don't give a good justification for the S part of SoD, just the D. #1 is the only reason to want the full SoD, because the gambler loves the big risk. He loves his fortune turning on a die roll.

One could say that #1 is gonzo old school and #3 is 'serious bizness' old school.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 12, 2010)

It surely can be appealing to think that each mishap in the game should be directly traceable to an error in play, a case of "not doing what one ought to have done".

It can also be appealing to think that "what ought to be done" should be just a matter of common sense. That may in turn suggest that the algorithm for a "perfect" performance should be plain enough with complete knowledge to make it very straightforward to discover with minimally skilled play.

In other words, one may come to consider the "perfect" performance the default, and any deviation an aberration that one must chalk up to either poor play or poor game design.

It is pretty clear to me that old D&D was not designed on this premise! Stuff often happens, or does not, on what is overwhelmingly likely to be a random basis.

It is to be expected, for instance, that whether at least one PC gets turned to stone upon discovering the medusa in the Caves of Chaos is going to hinge on a saving throw. It is not a penalty for notably poor play!

To the contrary, obviating it would probably be an example of notably _excellent_ play.

==================================================

As general rule, a claim that something is impossible in old D&D is probably wrong and a claim that something is possible is probably right. 

However, it is often accurate to speak of things being unlikely. The unlikelihood can increase by orders of magnitude when the game is removed from its original campaign context. The very likelihood of anyone even considering a problem, much less of solving it, can go right down the drain when the game's horizons have been reduced to a series of discrete "encounter" games.

Playing that way and designing scenarios (and rules sets) that way go together as a natural fit. Getting mentally too far in a rut, though, can make it hard to understand what's going on in a different model!

===================================================

OD&D was inspiration for _Zork_. Recent games are more likely to take inspiration from the heirs to _The Secret of Monkey Island_ -- if their designers or GMs are acquainted at all with the Adventure genre for which more than one obituary has been written.

Even writing purely as a hobbyist, for people who generally enjoy the challenges of classic Infocom, Sierra and Magnetic Scrolls games, there are criticisms -- old ones, really -- that I would take to heart along with appreciation of the added dimensions of interest vs. the more modern point-and-click games.

On the other hand, for a commercial undertaking I would look to the likes of Lucas Arts. 

If you have different ends in mind, then different means may be more appropriate.

The big hang-up for us is a tendency to insist that "the game remains the same" even when it is very much to the point that it does not. Gamer A is after things b and c, while Gamer X is after things x and y and does not want a or b.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 12, 2010)

BryonD said:


> It has amused me from time to time that the Gorgon monster is unrelated to Gorgons.



It's a medieval bestiary gorgon, not a Greek myth gorgon. It seems to have been made something between a catoblepas and the khalkotauroi.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 12, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Medusa in 4E is supposed to be Medusa and it is wrong.



It can't be Medusa. Medusa was a unique creature. In Greek myth there is no such thing as "a medusa". Just Medusa, one of the semi-divine gorgons. Who had wings, of course.

So the most you can say is that the D&D medusa is loosely based on the Medusa of Greek myth. I mean, does a winged horse spring forth from the body when the characters kill a medusa? Because unless it does, it can't be Medusa.

So the petrifying gaze is actually the *most similar thing* the D&D version has with the mythic version.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 12, 2010)

Hussar said:


> See, this is the attitude that flies up my nose.  If I don't like SoD I'm suddenly a whiney git?  I don't get to decide on my own that I think SoD is piss poor game design?  If I play with a DM who likes SoD, I just have to suck it up, or leave the game?



You're missing the distinct possibility that while you might think you have more fun without SoDs, you're actually wrong about that, and the DM knows it.



Hussar said:


> I dunno, I play with people I can actually have a conversation with.  That I can bring up concerns and discuss them rationally.  Maybe it's because I play with almost all DM's and mostly always have.  Very, very few of my groups have been made up of gamers with little or no DMing experience.  I've found that, by and large, as evidenced by this thread, a lot of DM's really don't like SoD effects, so that, even if they use them in the game, a few words at the waffle house after the game is usually all it takes.



This is where most of these arguments tend to fall. As long as you're playing with reasonable people who are playing the game for reasons similar to yours, there's never really an issue.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 12, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Personally I don't think non-rules based gamism works. It's not a real challenge, it just comes down to a GM call.




What, all that stuff about having to investigate the situation and form a strategy, instead of just rolling dice? It works for Poker. It works for Stratego. It works for Diplomacy. It works for D&D.

It also worked (and so did the role of GM) in a host of wargames prior to D&D. That's the scene from which and for which it was designed. Chance -- the factor that is actually relevant here, not "a GM call" -- was most definitely part of the challenge.

Maybe you don't like it, and that's fine. It's just baloney, though, when you claim that others of us have "no justification" for liking the game.

That not liking it has become the great fixation of so many is not to my mind a healthy development. It may be that down the line some other game, whose developers and fans are noted more for actually liking it, shall rise to first place in popularity.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 12, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Chance -- the factor that is actually relevant here, not "a GM call" -- was most definitely part of the challenge.




I tend to think of the randomness inherent in D&D as a) a good thing, and b) a representation of all those little elements that there's no way the GM has time to think up, let alone implement. So, when a save or skill roll or attack roll or wandering encounter roll produces an apparently incongruent result, it is an opportunity for the DM to engage in some creative description.

Let's say you are playing 3.x and there's a save versus death from a relatively weak source against a high level, powerful PC. The PC, who couldn't fail the save otherwise, rolls the dead Natural 1 and is killed by something that, by all accounts of the setting and mechanics based milieu, should not have been able to kill him. But it did, the same way that a man might die from slipping in the tub or taking a tumble on a ski slope or whatever. *Something* bad happened -- perhaps mere poor luck, but perhaps not. Powerful PCs often have powerful enemies -- not kings and courtiers, but gods and demon lords. Could one of them be responsible.

My point is, using the result is better than throwing it out, and having the possibility of the result is better than not, because even if you are a "story GM", those two options *create* more story than they inhibit.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 12, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> You're missing the distinct possibility that while you might think you have more fun without SoDs, you're actually wrong about that, and the DM knows it.




Is that supposed to be a stab at turning thread into one which was closed?


RC


----------



## jeffh (Aug 13, 2010)

I explain the result as DMs feeling worse about killing characters than the players of those characters feel about losing them. In some cases, the DM sees how much work the player has put in while the player, while also conscious of that, has half a dozen other ideas s/he'd be equally interested in trying out. This certainly happens in my own case.

As for the original topic, I voted DM/no, but that's really too black and white a choice. I think SoDs should be extremely rare and that any capable of affecting a PC or plot-critical NPC should be very high level, and either tied to unique creatures or cost the user something that will make them think twice about using them.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 13, 2010)

Reynard said:
			
		

> My point is, using the result is better than throwing it out, and having the possibility of the result is better than not, because even if you are a "story GM", those two options *create* more story than they inhibit.



If the "story GM" is called that because he is intent on telling a _particular_ story -- which is the only way I see the term being actually relevant -- then a random chance of something happening that he wants _not_ to happen is not going to be acceptable.

Closer to what you are actually talking about, as Clausewitz put it, "friction is the only concept that more or less corresponds to the factors that distinguish _real war_ from _war_ on _paper_. " (Or as Mike Tyson put it, "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth.")

Still, people trying to construct plausible paper wars are concerned with how closely statistics correspond to those in the real world. There are in fact actuarial records of death by accident in bathtubs and on ski slopes and so on, and insurance underwriters use those to calculate premiums.

A random chance that is far out of proportion is not what one wants in a "simulating" model. Just as in the case of the "story", there are boundaries within which acceptable probabilities lie.

Old D&D was designed as neither of those things, but above all as a _game_. The chances are what they are so that in the long run they play out on average as they do -- or rather as they _did_ in the years of development and play-testing that preceded publication.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 13, 2010)

RC said:
			
		

> If you still decide to play, and then you become upset when a SoD effect appears, esp. if you disrupt the game for everyone else, you are a whiny git. You knew what you were playing, you agreed to play it.




Oh, now ain't dat de troof.    I totally agree here.  

I think the main points of why I don't like SoD have been hit here, so, I'm just going to reiterate mostly for my own benefit:  (In case it's not totally clear, these are just 100% my opinion)

1.  SoD creatures are too one trick pony.  Yes, you can massage situations to make them more useful, much like other one trick pony creatures, but, that doesn't make them good design, it just means that a good DM can do things with inferior products.  Being able to use a crappy tool doesn't make the tool not crappy.

2.  SoD is too lethal.  The saving throws in the game are typically 25% fail at best, and usually considerably worse than that.  If an effect causes the group to SoD, it's almost guaranteed to kill at least one PC.  Any single effect that powerful should not be something that you can run into with any regularity.

3.  SoD is not worth the cost.  The thrill of forcing the save is not worth the potential loss of PC's.  Or, to put it another way, 10 seconds of excitement is not worth a player sitting out for potentially tens of minutes or perhaps even hours.

It's interesting to note, that once you get away from D&D, and associated clones, retro-clones and the like, I'm really drawing a blank on another game that uses this mechanic.  I've been reading a LOT of RPG's lately and I cannot think of a single one that uses this mechanic.  Can anyone else think of some?


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 13, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> If an effect causes the group to SoD, it's almost guaranteed to kill at least one PC. Any single effect that powerful should not be something that you can run into with any regularity.




I know some players who would be loath to give up their _sleep_ spells.

Leaving 'em in leaves in the utility of tactics that _prevent_ the whole party from getting zapped at once.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 13, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> 10 seconds of excitement is not worth a player sitting out for potentially tens of minutes or perhaps even hours.



Yeah, funny thing, that is not an issue in old D&D.

It's an issue in 3e, and Rolemaster, and Hero System, and GURPS, and so on and on.


----------



## InquisitorLeet (Aug 13, 2010)

I'm a DM and I dislike Save or Die. I fee like it's really anti-climatic. The PC's prepare to kill the bbeg, researching and questing and killing his way through minions and then at the final scene the wizard petrifies him in the first round...that seems boring for the wizard and the rest of they party.

gaming stories are always more interesting when you talk about being whittled down to your last few hitpoints and finally landing the killing blow while half the party is in negatives then simply saying: "yeah we petrified him"

-Inquisitor Leet


----------



## zlorf (Aug 13, 2010)

I personally not a fan of save and die - but what you say is true. Its the DM's job to provide hints/good comms to players that if they dont heed them then death may be lurking around the corner. With the medusa the DM has a few statues that look out of place or misc adventures, even a missing town member. 

I think save or die works well with earlier versions (pre 2nd ed) because it only took a short amount of time to build a new character if required.

If the players ignore the DM's hints, then they only have themselves to blame. 

Cheers
Z




the_orc_within said:


> Why would you have gone into a game with SoDs in the first place if they're a gamebreaker for you?  If you didn't know they were there or weren't expecting them, that tells me there was a huge breakdown in communication between the DM and players.
> 
> Frankly, that's what discussions like these are _really_ about:  making sure everyone at the table has non-conflicting expectations for the game.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 13, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Also, is anyone else interested in the fact that according to this poll, DMs are overall opposed to save-or-die while players seem to be in favor?




I would guess it's because it's a major campaign-changing event that can turn on the roll of the die.  It can easily ruin carefully crafted campaign plotlines/outcomes that the DM spent a long time creating.  The DM's plans become subject to the whim of the die!


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 13, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Also, is anyone else interested in the fact that according to this poll, DMs are overall opposed to save-or-die while players seem to be in favor?



As I noted way back when in this thread, I think it's because players might be using SoD effects more often than their DMs.  And if you're using 'em and making 'em work, you gotta like 'em, right? 


			
				Ariosto said:
			
		

> Just as in the case of the "story", there are boundaries within which acceptable probabilities lie.
> 
> Old D&D was designed as neither of those things, but above all as a game.



Oh, I don't know...we get some pretty good stories out of our old-school games. 

The trick to it, though, is to put the detailed story together after the fact rather than trying to force it into on-the-fly play.  All you need for play is a basic framework, one that is malleable enough to withstand whatever curveballs and left turns the players chuck at it.

Lan-"do the same people who dislike SoD also dislike level drain and magic item destruction?"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 13, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> I would guess it's because it's a major campaign-changing event that can turn on the roll of the die.  It can easily ruin carefully crafted campaign plotlines/outcomes that the DM spent a long time creating.  The DM's plans become subject to the whim of the die!



That's because they *are* subject to the whim of the die, or the whim of the party, or the whim of a player or two, or ...

Rule 1: Never design anything around a single PC unless you *absolutely* have to, because it never ends well*.

* - says he, who is currently trying to dig out from having done just that: designed a short AP around a single PC who then not only died, but before she died did enough to ensure that if she is ever revived she faces - you guessed it - execution for her crimes!

Lan="'plan' is a 4-letter word anyway"-efan


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 13, 2010)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Oh, I don't know...we get some pretty good stories out of our old-school games.



Yes, Lanefan. If you seriously think those statements are in opposition to mine, then you are seriously misreading.




> The trick to it, though, is to put the detailed story together after the fact rather than trying to force it into on-the-fly play.



And why is this the trick? It is the trick because the dice may disagree with your preconceived story. The more defined the story and the wilder the swing of random results, the greater the incompatibility.

If there is any internal consistency at all (and there has been darned little in some of my completely improvised adventures), then there is a "story" about the nature of the world -- like our stories of natural history (and plain history) in the real world. If water flows uphill one time in 100, or 1 in 20 trips to the apothecary involves getting hit with a rubber chicken by a man in full plate armor, then that might just be a bit much for some folks.

YMMV, naturally.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 13, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> And why is this the trick? It is the trick because the dice may disagree with your preconceived story. The more defined the story and the wilder the swing of random results, the greater the incompatibility.



I think we're actually trying to agree here.

What I'm getting at is that any "preconceived story" has to be flexible enough to withstand anything the dice and-or players can throw at it; and even then sometimes has to be chucked out completely and replaced on the fly - preferably smoothly enough that the players don't realize what you're doing. 

Then after the fact, when you're doing up the game log or story hour or whatever, *that's* when you weave the story in.  And sometimes it takes ages for the various threads to tie together...or even become apparent as threads at all.

Lan-"like a duck: look placid while you're paddling like hell"-efan


----------



## pemerton (Aug 13, 2010)

Hussar said:


> It's interesting to note, that once you get away from D&D, and associated clones, retro-clones and the like, I'm really drawing a blank on another game that uses this mechanic.  I've been reading a LOT of RPG's lately and I cannot think of a single one that uses this mechanic.  Can anyone else think of some?



Rolemaster has save-or-die/suck badly - and not only in its spell/magic system, but (in effect) in combat as well, via its critical charts.

It's an issue for Rolemaster, given the complexity of character generation in that game.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 13, 2010)

pemerton said:


> Rolemaster has save-or-die/suck badly - and not only in its spell/magic system, but (in effect) in combat as well, via its critical charts.
> 
> It's an issue for Rolemaster, given the complexity of character generation in that game.




Not really surprising considering how close Rolemaster and D&D are as games.



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> Lan-"do the same people who dislike SoD also dislike level drain and magic item destruction?"-efan




LOATHE level drain as it was originally written.  Didn't mind it too much in 3e when they added the save.  My level drain in 1e and 2e was healable over time - 1 week per level loss IIRC.

Now magic item destruction?  Don't care.  As a player or a DM.  Items and gear never really entered into it that much.  I might not like losing my Holy Avenger, but, it's not something that's going to be too much of a big deal.  You can always get another sword after all.

A bit above, RC mentioned the dreaded Rust monster and I think that is also a big reason why I don't like SoD.  One thing most of us have agreed on is that bombing an unsuspecting party with a SoD monster is a bad thing to do.  SoD monsters should be foreshadowed, there should be ample opportunity to discover their presence, etc.

I don't like really limited use monsters like that.  I can chuck a troll at a party in almost any situation - the troll can ambush the party, the party can ambush the troll, they could surprise each other,  the troll could parley, whatever.  But, with these SoD monsters, I have to pay extra attention to them.  I don't like monsters that require extra special attention.  

To me, a well designed critter is one that I can pick up and drop into the game with as much prep as I feel like doing - could be entirely random, or it could be built up over several sessions.  I don't like the idea that a class of creatures has to have special signs placed all over them warning DM's to "use with care".

Just not my thing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 13, 2010)

Hussar,

Are you aware that, apart from matters of preference, we now essentially agree?  The only difference is that I believe, if you are going to have deadly encounters, *all* creatures need to be used with care.  Those with SoD effects, rust monsters, etc., are not unique in this.  Oh, and I guess if, in the course of simply running a game, I end up using a monster 20 different ways, I can't consider it a "one trick pony"!  

I am not sure how many rpgs use the saving throw mechanic, which rather limits how many will use SoD.  The aforementioned Cubicle 7 Doctor Who uses weapons which do L damage on a hit (Lethal - you die).  That is similar to SoD.  An AP mechanic is used to ameliorate this effect for PCs, specifically to make the game play like the series.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 13, 2010)

RC - Yeah, nice when that happens isn't it?    Oh, but wait, I wonder if someone will now come along and claim that I'm misrepresenting your arguements yet again.  Don't you feel all warm and fuzzy when someone swoops in to be your knight in shining armor?

Or, maybe I'm only misrepresenting arguements when I disagree.  I can never get it straight.  It keeps changing every time you see, and it's so hard to keep up.

Anyway, yeah, we have been agreeing more or less for the past twenty pages.  The only disagreement really, is in preference.  Which mostly stems from play style preferences.  I'm not really into the whole world building thing, so, the idea of having info-dumps on the players to the extent you would require doesn't appeal to me.  On the flip side, I think you'd probably find my games rather shallow.  

Hus "barely a rain puddle" sar.  (Hey that is fun.  )


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 13, 2010)

Hussar said:


> RC - Yeah, nice when that happens isn't it?    Oh, but wait, I wonder if someone will now come along and claim that I'm misrepresenting your arguements yet again.  Don't you feel all warm and fuzzy when someone swoops in to be your knight in shining armor?




Yes.  Yes I do.  

Because, like it or not, you share something else with me -- a thick head!    They were correct about what I was saying, and the way you were presenting it was incorrect.  Although the method might have been harsh (and elicited a mod warning), it did perhaps help you to understand what I was trying to say.



> Anyway, yeah, we have been agreeing more or less for the past twenty pages.  The only disagreement really, is in preference.




I wouldn't go that far.  

We certainly disagreed about what I was trying to say.  It is only when we were clearly communicating that any form of agreement could be forged.

And, yes, it is usually in cases of disagreement where opinions get misrepresented.  That's in part honest ("Are you trying to say X?  I think you are saying X!", and sometimes people forget to add the "I think") and in part dishonest (usually dishonest to oneself, because one gets caught up in the _*arguing*_, and loses track of the *argument*).  

At least, that is where I sometimes get in trouble.


RC


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 13, 2010)

Why does a rust monster, a ghoul, a medium, etc., "require extra special attention"?

That seems to be saying more about how little attention you pay to other monsters.

Anyhow, if one prefers to play Game Z then I suggest it might be better simply to do so than to waste time with Game X about which one has so many complaints.

Going back to my earlier analogy, if I wanted to produce a commercially viable Adventure game, no way would I start by copying _Zork_! Dump the parser, dump the puzzles, dump death ... What's the point?

Better to start fresh, or at least with a model closer to what one is after.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 13, 2010)

Oh, yeah:

One might note the inconsistency of those who (a) otherwise insist on "challenging the character, not the player" and (b) insist in this special case on just the opposite.

One might then observe that general principles very often have exceptions, because they are but servants to more important and complex valuations.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 13, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Anyhow, if one prefers to play Game Z then I suggest it might be better simply to do so than to waste time with Game X about which one has so many complaints.




Ok, you edited the post so it isn't quite as antagonistic as before... but I still really don't like this line of logic. 

I like D&D. I expect most of the people in this thread do so. The fact they don't like one aspect of it isn't reason for them to go hunt down a different game. Limiting their options to either accepting elements they dislike, or ditching the game entirely, just isn't a reasonable proposition. 

There are quite a few people that play D&D. No game is going to be perfect for all of them. That's why we have house rules. 

If I'm misinterpreting your point, just let me know. But given what was there before the edit, it is sounding an awful lot like saying that if certain gamers don't like specific aspects of the game, it is their own fault, and they should either keep quiet about it or find a different game. I don't think it is nearly that simple, and would even argue D&D is all about every group finding the best way to play the game for themselves.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 13, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Anyhow, if one prefers to play Game Z then I suggest it might be better simply to do so than to waste time with Game X about which one has so many complaints.



Doesn't this run contrary to the "mod the hell out of it", DIY, spirit of old-school D&D?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 13, 2010)

I don't think it is about the changes, _per se_.  I think it is about massive changes, while making claims that the game remains the same.  Had the changed game been called something else, I doubt any advocates of older editions would care.

There are people who believe that the game has changed in a fundamental way, not only in rules but in spirit, from its inception to the current edition.  To those people, the claim that this new thing (which is found undesireable) "remains the same" as the old (which is enjoyed) is a form of slander.

Rather similar to how some others might feel if they faced a recurrent and official claim that SSSoD is essentially the same as SoD; nothing has changed.  

I am more than willing to accept 4e into the D&D family -- it some good ideas, even if I don't care for how they were developed -- but I can certainly understand why others might not.  There have been games more akin to OD&D or 1e than 4e is for decades.  And they managed to stay in business despite TSR's aggressive stance re: IP because they were _*not the same*_.



RC


----------



## BryonD (Aug 13, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I like D&D. I expect most of the people in this thread do so. The fact they don't like one aspect of it isn't reason for them to go hunt down a different game. Limiting their options to either accepting elements they dislike, or ditching the game entirely, just isn't a reasonable proposition.



You are leaving out one piece.  And that one piece makes ditching the game not only very reasonable, but even the best option available.

And that one piece is: There are one or more other games ready and waiting that hit much closer to the mark.

It would be misleading to say that I "like D&D".  I love roleplaying games, and I have a particular tendency to prefer fantasy based games.

I played 1E and 2E until I found that there were better games.  I left D&D because I had zero brand loyalty and complete interest in great fantasy RPGs.  D&D wasn't it.  Then 3E came along, and to me, D&D was it again.  Now, with 4E, D&D again isn't it.  4E is fine, but it is the Nth best fantasy RPG out there.  And N is a lot higher than the number of different game systems I'm invested in.

I play PF.  But my PF is seriously house-ruled.  There are several aspects of PF that don't work for me, and as you said, I'm not looking for another game over them.  But, with PF, the foundation of the game, the core presumaptions of what makes a good game, are right there in my interests.  This is really not a true statement for the foundations of 4E.  (A SoD is a symptom of that, not a cause)


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 13, 2010)

MrMyth said:
			
		

> I like D&D. I expect most of the people in this thread do so. The fact they don't like one aspect of it isn't reason for them to go hunt down a different game.




As a practical matter, they _are_ hunting down a different game.

They can do that as they please, of course.

The fact that someone dislikes not merely "one aspect of it" but _fundamental_ aspects -- which tie together thing after thing he loathes -- suggests that he may well be more pleasant company when talking about something designed on fundamentals that he _does_ like.

The fact that someone insists on performing an "Emily Litella" sketch is just one of the indications that he has gone beyond "suit yourself" to desperately trying to sell the line that "you are wrong".

No, cricket is not baseball, and "soccer" might not be the football someone has in mind. This is not a news flash to some of us. Neither are we about to say, "Yes, you are right", when someone insists that we play football by hopping around on pogo sticks. No, the fact of the matter is that we do not -- and so we do not encounter the dreadful problems that he does in that bizarre undertaking!

Now, suppose someone were to tell fans of a game designed around a philosophy of dramatic narrative concerns -- one in which player-characters _never_ die due to chance, perhaps never but by the player's choice -- that they are wrong and "unjustified" in liking it, that it should be rewritten so that this and other things are just the opposite. For a start, the next edition should _introduce_ a rule of "save or die".

Maybe the complaint is that point-based builds are just the start of what makes Hero System bad, or that the Sanity rules top the list of things that make Call of Cthulhu unpalatable.

Does not common sense kick in at some point? Does not decorum suggest some comportment?

There is a point at which the tenor of assertions goes beyond "suit yourself" to "you are wrong". What this has led to at least twice in the D&D context is to new rules-books that people saying so can wave at each other.

Maybe I have missed it, but I think the latest one pretty well settled the issue at hand on the side of "nay". 

It's done. You've got your One True Way as Official as can be.

Groove on those Official Rules, or groove on your house rules. Drop the bull hockey attempt to "prove wrong" the preference of others for the old game.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> Doesn't this run contrary to the "mod the hell out of it", DIY, spirit of old-school D&D?




It runs into the "take those portions you can use and ignore the rest" spirit of RuneQuest. Or, depending on direction of departure, maybe Bunnies & Burrows, or Paranoia, or Ghostbusters, or Big Eyes Small Mouth, or Nobilis, or ...

If it's really all the same to you, then there are all those other venues in which to complain about how much X sucks!

You can knock yourself out talking classes and levels and experience points in RuneQuest, or "class balance" between grogs and magi in Ars Magica, or intra-party trust in Paranoia, or linear probability spreads in World of Darkness, or how much you hate manga and anime influences in BESM. There are all sorts of opportunities for confusion and high horses and low blows!


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 13, 2010)

BryonD said:


> You are leaving out one piece. And that one piece makes ditching the game not only very reasonable, but even the best option available.
> 
> And that one piece is: There are one or more other games ready and waiting that hit much closer to the mark.




Whoa, one second - I'm not saying it _can't_ be a reasonable decision to move to a new game if you dislike elements of your current one. Of course it can be! 

But that doesn't mean it always is the case. Suggesting that, if the game you enjoy has an element you dislike, the best course of action is to leave the game and find a new one - rather than find a solution around the disliked element or hope the game changes to address your concerns - seems counter to the sort of customization D&D has always been about.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 13, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Yeah, funny thing, that is not an issue in old D&D.
> 
> It's an issue in 3e, and Rolemaster, and Hero System, and GURPS, and so on and on.




It's not really an issue with the rest of these games either (certainly not hours) unless the player is the type to *agonize* over their character building decisions, particularly backstory. And if they are, chances are they would have the same problem in old D&D as well.

An efficient and effective player, who probably already has a set of interesting character ideas he wants to try and simply had to pick one for the game in the first place, can crank out a character in virtually any game in a short time.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 13, 2010)

Hussar said:


> LOATHE level drain as it was originally written.  Didn't mind it too much in 3e when they added the save.  My level drain in 1e and 2e was healable over time - 1 week per level loss IIRC.




I never liked it either. Didn't even like 3e's spending of XPs. I understood why it was there, just didn't like it. I never liked the idea of a character actually losing knowledge. It's one reason I've been preferring Pathfinder over the 3x family. Permanent negative levels and no XP costs for magic item creation or powerful spells.



Hussar said:


> Now magic item destruction?  Don't care.  As a player or a DM.  Items and gear never really entered into it that much.  I might not like losing my Holy Avenger, but, it's not something that's going to be too much of a big deal.  You can always get another sword after all.




I agree here too. Gear is just gear. Wealth in D&D is *not* a point buy system. I have always believed that was the utterly wrong way to look at it and liable to cause far more stress than it was worth.



Hussar said:


> To me, a well designed critter is one that I can pick up and drop into the game with as much prep as I feel like doing - could be entirely random, or it could be built up over several sessions.  I don't like the idea that a class of creatures has to have special signs placed all over them warning DM's to "use with care".
> 
> Just not my thing.




Here is where I disagree. A well-designed monster is one that has a *place* in D&D, one with lore, one with the information I want to give it a footprint in a world with as much verisimilitude as I can give it, fantastic abilities and all. I don't just "pick up and drop into" my game any old critter. It's there for a *reason* and has an effect on the world around it... at least as much as I can manage it.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 13, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Because, mathematically speaking, save or die is very rarely just save or die, it's usually just die.  An unprepared party of five PC's meets a medusa has to make five saving throws, possibly ten saving throws if there is a surprise round, before their first action.  The chances that someone will fail that saving throw is too great IMO.
> 
> If the chance of failing the save is even 25%, odds say that someone is going to die in the first round if they are caught unprepared.
> 
> ...




I find this line of analysis problematic. If you look at the party as a whole, the risk that *someone* will die from a SoD depends on how big the party is. And while the SoD ability may cause more casualties, the larger number of party members significantly reduces the overall risk of the monster to the party. So the analysis is ultimately confused and, I think, contradictory.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 13, 2010)

MrMyth said:
			
		

> Suggesting that, if the game you enjoy has an element you dislike, the best course of action is to leave the game ...




Vanna, I'd like to buy some relevance.

Seriously, neither has BryonD nor have I "suggested" any such thing!

The fact of the matter is that sweeping differences from the old game are already -- in 3e -- part of the context in which the issue of "SoD" is being considered.

It is not surprising that details of the S have given way in discussion to the place of D, and D itself to sundry inconveniences from personal petrification to rusting of gear and beyond.

"The game" is a whole process. There are many different Poker games, so we need to know which one we are supposed to be playing. However, there are shared basic principles. If you don't like those, then anything someone who does thinks is worth calling Poker is probably not for you. The same holds for Chess -- and Chess is not Poker, nor Poker Chess.

The Winner's Rule #1 is to Know the Victory Conditions. Whatever they are, a winning strategy is directed toward them.

A game designer likewise needs first to have objectives for the design to implement. A lot depends on whether the players have the same objectives.

Consider: I have seen a lot of talk about how spell-casters are "broken" in 3e. I certainly think they get huge concessions in the rules, which must be telling in any case (although there may also be some offsetting factors).

However, one problem is not (as far as I recall) in "the rules", in the sense of the little fiddly situation-specific bits. It's in the larger context, which may popularly have been changed significantly not just from the original game -- the source of the "SoD" elements -- but maybe even from what the 3e designers intended.

Although the 3e rules give PCs maximum h.p. at first level, and another hit dice each and every level, they still give m-us (even the lowliest now styled "wizards") only a four-sided dice.

One might well wonder why that might be. Why does a wizard get only d4, while a fighter gets d10? What purpose does it serve? What is the anticipated result?

(Here's a hint: In AD&D, and I think also in 3e, not only is a fire ball or lightning bolt from a peer on average "save or die" to an m-u, but even a successful save means losing on average 70% of full hit points. Meanwhile, the average fighter -- without a constitution bonus -- is still standing unless (a) the save fails and (b) the damage dice come up at least half 6, the rest 5. A _failed_ save costs the fighter on average only 64%. The fighter is then just half a point per level behind a _full-strength_ m-u.)

In the old game, the anticipated result is that _magic-users die like flies_.

If that were happening in 3e, then it would be even more significant. In AD&D, the x.p. to get an m-u from 1st to 6th get a fighter from 6th to 7th. In 3e, by the time a replacement wizard gets to 6th, the fighter will (with the same x.p.) be 8th.

Go back Jack, do it again, and the fighter is 10th vs. the wizard's 6th.

At the very least, the 3e resurrection spell calls for loss of a level (or 2 points of constitution if 1st level).

No doubt that difference in hit dice is having that effect in some 3e campaigns, but it is not what I have seen or heard about! No, the "gentlemen's agreement" that seems usually to apply is ... basically just the way the designers of 4e say that _their_ game actually works best in a lot of ways.

Guess what else the 4e guys figured out? If you turn the wizard into more of a warrior, then -- if you really want the kind of balance they wanted -- either (a) you make the wizard less of a magician or (b) you make the fighter more of a magician or (c) a bit of each. 

They don't use hit dice, but give set numbers of points -- and lots of 'em. Again, that's not just an accident. It serves purposes.

If you are not on board with the purposes, then the better they are served the worse the design will serve you.


----------



## Imaginary Number (Aug 14, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> There are people who believe that the game has changed in a fundamental way, not only in rules but in spirit, from its inception to the current edition. To those people, the claim that this new thing (which is found undesireable) "remains the same" as the old (which is enjoyed) is a form of slander.




There are also people who believe that the game has not changed in a fundamental way, neither in rules nor in spirit, from its inception to the current edition.  And to those people, the claim that the new thing is equivalent to the old thing in many ways seems obvious, and they can't figure out how something as strongly worded as "slander" can work its way into the discourse.  (YMMV, of course.)

In any event, I've seen people on this site, including me, go around this bend more than a few times before, and I'm not inclined to keep riding on old hobbyhorses.  For the record, I'm primarily a DM and a fan of the 4e SSSorD mechanic; I like the idea of cascading negative consequences rather than a simple binary positive/negative resolution when the PCs encounter something with that sort of attack.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 14, 2010)

billd91 said:


> /snip - I love it when we all agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is where I disagree. A well-designed monster is one that has a *place* in D&D, one with lore, one with the information I want to give it a footprint in a world with as much verisimilitude as I can give it, fantastic abilities and all. I don't just "pick up and drop into" my game any old critter. It's there for a *reason* and has an effect on the world around it... at least as much as I can manage it.




I totally accept that this is a playstyle thing.  I've long maintained a stance that strongly rejects a lot of the world-building elements that some people really appreaciate.  I understand that these are two very different approaches.  To me, the "place in D&D" is a meaningless concept since my campaign worlds are always different and generally not so broadly integrated as some people's.  

Different strokes and all that.  For me, I look at the ease in which I can drag and drop a critter and judge the critter based on that.  The easier it is, the better I think it is.  The more I have to manipulate the scenario, or engineer specific circimstances, the worse I judge a creature.

But, that's totally my view on it and should not be seen as a blanket judgement at all.



billd91 said:


> I find this line of analysis problematic. If you look at the party as a whole, the risk that *someone* will die from a SoD depends on how big the party is. And while the SoD ability may cause more casualties, the larger number of party members significantly reduces the overall risk of the monster to the party. So the analysis is ultimately confused and, I think, contradictory.




Actually, that's not true.  The larger the party is the more deadly a SoD creature becomes.  If you have 1 PC with a 50/50 save, there's a 50/50 chance of death.  If you have 4 PC's with a 50/50 save, odds say two should die in the first round.  

That's one of my big beefs with these abilities.  They actually become MORE deadly the larger the party is.  My current group has 6 PC's, soon to be 7.  A SoD creature with a gaze attack is pretty much an instant death sentence for one PC in the first round.

To me, it just plays silly buggers with the math of the game.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 14, 2010)

Imaginary Number said:


> There are also people who believe that the game has not changed in a fundamental way, neither in rules nor in spirit, from its inception to the current edition.  And to those people, the claim that the new thing is equivalent to the old thing in many ways seems obvious, and they can't figure out how something as strongly worded as "slander" can work its way into the discourse.  (YMMV, of course.)
> 
> /snip.




This I would actually disagree with.  I do think that the game has changed in a number of fundamental ways mechanically.  I'm not really sure how you could claim that it hasn't.  The addition and subtraction of so many systems makes for some pretty different games, mechanically.

OTOH, I do think that the spirit has not changed all that much.  Which tends to get me into trouble sometimes.    I fell as I  watch the WOTC gaming podcasts or whatnot, that the spirit of the game isn't all that different.  It's most certainly D&D.  It might emphasize different elements of the game, but, it's all D&D to me.  

Then again, I tend to be a pretty big tent kind of guy.  I don't mind including Pathfinder into D&D either.  If Moldvay Basic, 2e with Skills and Powers, and 3.5e using Unearthed Arcana and Tome of Magic are all considered D&D, I have no problems throwing 4e into the same pot.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 14, 2010)

Ranes said:


> I haven't voted, because there isn't an option for me. As a DM and a player, I want save or die.




Ditto for me as well.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> This I would actually disagree with.  I do think that the game has changed in a number of fundamental ways mechanically.  I'm not really sure how you could claim that it hasn't.  The addition and subtraction of so many systems makes for some pretty different games, mechanically.



Agreed.


> OTOH, I do think that the spirit has not changed all that much.  Which tends to get me into trouble sometimes.    I fell as I  watch the WOTC gaming podcasts or whatnot, that the spirit of the game isn't all that different.  It's most certainly D&D.  It might emphasize different elements of the game, but, it's all D&D to me.



However, one could argue - and probably successfully - that the emphasis on different elements changes the focus of the game and with it, the spirit.  In very broad-brush strokes, for example, 2e focused on story while 3e focused on math and 4e focused on balance; and that shifting focus does change the spirit...for better or worse. 


> Then again, I tend to be a pretty big tent kind of guy.  I don't mind including Pathfinder into D&D either.  If Moldvay Basic, 2e with Skills and Powers, and 3.5e using Unearthed Arcana and Tome of Magic are all considered D&D, I have no problems throwing 4e into the same pot.



OK, now they're all in the same pot turn it up to 'boil' for a few hours, will ya?  I wanna see what emerges when they've all been melted together. 

Lan-"but it'll still need salt"-efan


----------



## Hussar (Aug 14, 2010)

Lanefan - I'd certainly agree that the focus is different in different editions.  We've gone from heavy reliance on the dungeon crawl to a more "story" based campaign, then "back to the dungeon" and now something that plays mix and match with both.  I'm not sure if that's really changing the "spirit" all that much.  That's a pretty nebulous concept.

I look at it this way, I could run Keep on the Borderlands in any edition and it's not going to drastically change - you have a rag tag band of misfits going somewhere dangerous to kill stuff and take their treasure.  The exact mechanics don't really faze me all that much.

OTOH, I do completely recognize the fact that for some people, the devil is in the details.  Taking out the Dwarf and adding in a Dragonborn fighter results in a completely different game for some people.  It doesn't for me.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 14, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> That's one of my big beefs with these abilities.  They actually become MORE deadly the larger the party is.




*Hussar's Infinite Attacks (Ex)*
This is a feature of the "Hussar's" template. This ability applies only to attacks that permit a saving throw. It enables the creature to use each such attack simultaneously on every creature the DM chooses. Factors that would normally prohibit so many attacks, such as rate of fire, range, visibility, cover, facing, arc of fire, blast radius, etc., are not considered.

The Hussar's Beholder would be feared throughout the known universe, had it not exterminated all other life in the known universe in the first 48 seconds of its existence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But seriously ... I think you and billd91 have your eyes here on different games.

In your game, it is in the first place the rule, and in the second place a big deal, that a party of 8 will take twice the casualties as a party of 4.

In billd91's game, maybe the party of 4 takes 2, and the party of 8 takes just the 1 the other guys suffered initially -- before more than twice the firepower finishes the foe so much more quickly.

Maybe it remains true that the bigger party loses 4, but that is not a big deal next to the fact that 4 are still twice as strong as 2 (unless you're doing this wacky "nothing but more casualties" routine routinely).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, I think that D&D is pretty basically predicated on players having more control over what they do than had the fellows in the trenches in World War One. It ought to be possible to come up with better tactics than "everyone line up to get mowed down", and players ought to be free to implement them.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 14, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> ...OK, now they're all in the same pot turn it up to 'boil' for a few hours, will ya? I wanna see what emerges when they've all been melted together.
> 
> Lan-"but it'll still need salt"-efan




It's kind of like Mongolian BBQ. Pick the parts you want, throw em' together, and see what comes out. But yeah, it will still need salt...you always have to season to taste!


----------



## BryonD (Aug 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> ...it's all D&D to me...



Is GURPS fantasy "D&D" to you?  Is HERO?  Is Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay?

It is all "fantasy roleplay" to me.  But there are a lot of "but"s to keep in mind.

If WHFRP is "D&D" to you, then, imo, you are not using the label "D&D" correctly.  Not that there is a big problem here, Xerox doesn't mean "photocopy" but people still get the point.  But it is better to speak clearly, and in the case I do think the distinctions impact the conversation.

"D&D" is nothing but a brand name.  Every version of D&D, so far, has also been "fantasy roleplay".  But the games are decidedly different from one to another, within the brand.  

If you see Moldvay and 3E as under the same "all D&D" umbrella, but HERO and WHFRP are not just because they lack the 
D&D brand label, then I'm forced to conclude this is not a very thoughtful or useful assessment.

Whereas if you see all "fantasy roleplay" as "all D&D", I'm still stuck not finding that useful.  You can't talk to a wine collector and tell them that "wine is wine" and expect them to go on to look to your opinions as meaningful with regard to the merits of their collection.  

Different versions of fantasy roleplay bearing the name "D&D" are hugely different in the details.  Having a preference for one over another is all simple taste, and it is all good.  But calling them all the same is odd.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Actually, that's not true.  The larger the party is the more deadly a SoD creature becomes.  If you have 1 PC with a 50/50 save, there's a 50/50 chance of death.  If you have 4 PC's with a 50/50 save, odds say two should die in the first round.



It is certainly very possible for a party of four characters to bumble into a SoD encounter.  But the number of characters in my parties has varied between four and six (briefly and rarely eight).  In the regular course of events I would expect the avg number of people initially exposed to the effect is slightly over one.  

You have gone from taking issue with expectations of mitigating factors to now requiring as a unavoidable truth that all party members will be caught flat footed (not the mechanical term here) by a SoD threat in the first round.

As someone who is all about the story, I'm again struck by just how wildly different the game you play is to mine.  The narrative driven events are all controlling in my games.  The mechanics are absolute slaves to the narrative.  The idea that a basilisk encounter is required because it is on a random encounter table is just plain wrong to me.  I certainly might use a random table to determine a piece of the narrative in an organic manner, if you will.  But the results of that table work for me, not the other way around.

And, in the same manner, the characters rolling their saves in the first round is not some predetermined mechanical known.  It is the result of the narrative of events leading up to the encounter.  There have probably been more events in which the party actually got the drop on a SoD threat than there have been three pr more saves in round one.  Not that it can't happen.  It certainly CAN.  But the presumption is way out of line.  It completely removes the "game" from the roleplay".




> To me, it just plays silly buggers with the math of the game.



The math should be invisible as possible.  When you start messing with the story over "the math" you defeat the purpose.  (Obviously, imo)


----------



## BryonD (Aug 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> OTOH, I do completely recognize the fact that for some people, the devil is in the details.  Taking out the Dwarf and adding in a Dragonborn fighter results in a completely different game for some people.  It doesn't for me.



Just to throw in on this line:

Swapping a Dragonborn in for a Dwarf would have a huge impact on the narrative to me.  But neither narrative is better than the other.

And it has zero impact on the merits of the game side.

I personally don't like dragonborn as much as dwarves.  But it is pure taste and if I was a fan of 4E mechanically I'd just not use the dragonborn in my games and keep moving.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 15, 2010)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Different versions of fantasy roleplay bearing the name "D&D" are hugely different in the details. Having a preference for one over another is all simple taste, and it is all good. But calling them all the same is odd.




So, what do you call what you play?  I say that I'm playing in a D&D campaign on Tuesday mornings.  I've been playing in various campaigns on Tuesday (and Thursday morning before that) for the past 10 years.  While the rules have changed three times in that time, I still think that I'm playing D&D.  Actually, the rules have changed more than 3 times considering the number of books and whatnot that has crossed the table - Unearthed Arcana, Scarred Lands with its own rules, Tome of Magic, Bo9S, now 4e.  Meh, to me, it's always been D&D.  

Does it play differently mechanically?  Sure, not going to disagree there.  But, there are far more, for me, similarities than differences.  In every game, I've generated a six stat character based on 3-18 for base stats, given him a class, given him feats, given him skills and a race and equipment.  That character has then gone on a series of adventures based around heroic fantasy tropes.

To me, that's good enough to call it D&D.  Heck, back in 2e, I invaded my campaign with War of the World style tripods and the characters had lazer blasters.    And I'd STILL call that D&D.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> As someone who is all about the story, I'm again struck by just how wildly different the game you play is to mine. The narrative driven events are all controlling in my games. The mechanics are absolute slaves to the narrative. The idea that a basilisk encounter is required because it is on a random encounter table is just plain wrong to me. I certainly might use a random table to determine a piece of the narrative in an organic manner, if you will. But the results of that table work for me, not the other way around




Why are you taking issue with me here then?  It's old school gaming that you're really arguing against.  The idea that events occur in the game world that are not pre-determined by the DM.

I've played this way, I've played the other way too.  Both have their advantages.

From what you're saying, for any encounter to occur, there must be a logical narrative leading to that encounter.  Yet, ambushing the party with a medusa most certainly can flow logically.  The basilisk encounter in A1 is not terribly out of line.  Nor is the banshee in the attick in Beyond the Magic Mirror.  Heck, honestly, the bodak assassins sent after the party in Savage Tide is perfectly reasonable.  

The problem is, if I do this, it's a pretty much guaranteed death sentence on one character.  That's why I don't like it.  The DM is forced by the mechanics to ensure that the party is ready for the encounter.  If he doesn't, then the encounter is too lethal.

The one thing pretty much everyone has agreed on in this thread is ambushing PC's with SoD creatures is a bad idea.  But, ambushing with SSSoD is mostly fine.  In 4e, you've only got a 1 in 8 chance of actually failing completely and it's quite possible to improve those odds.  That's much better, IMO, than a 100% death rate.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 15, 2010)

Hussar said:


> The problem is, if I do this, it's a pretty much guaranteed death sentence on one character.  That's why I don't like it.  The DM is forced by the mechanics to ensure that the party is ready for the encounter.  If he doesn't, then the encounter is too lethal.
> 
> The one thing pretty much everyone has agreed on in this thread is ambushing PC's with SoD creatures is a bad idea.  But, ambushing with SSSoD is mostly fine.  In 4e, you've only got a 1 in 8 chance of actually failing completely and it's quite possible to improve those odds.  That's much better, IMO, than a 100% death rate.



In the SoD equation, aren't you forgetting the S part?

Even at very low levels, you're going to save some of the time - though maybe not very often.  As levels improve, so do relative odds of making a save (usually) to the point where at high levels you're going to make that save unless you're unlucky.  And you often still have ways of improving the odds further.

As long as there's a save involved, there is no 100% death rate.

Lan-"my sword, on the other hand, always generates a 100% death rate - eventually"-efan


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 15, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Actually, that's not true.  The larger the party is the more deadly a SoD creature becomes.  If you have 1 PC with a 50/50 save, there's a 50/50 chance of death.  If you have 4 PC's with a 50/50 save, odds say two should die in the first round.
> 
> That's one of my big beefs with these abilities.  They actually become MORE deadly the larger the party is.  My current group has 6 PC's, soon to be 7.  A SoD creature with a gaze attack is pretty much an instant death sentence for one PC in the first round.
> 
> To me, it just plays silly buggers with the math of the game.




Whoa, hold on there. That's got nothing to do with save-or-die; it's a result of the gaze attack mechanic, which is essentially an AoE attack with an area encompassing the battlefield. The same mathematical oddity would happen if the gaze attack dealt damage instead. Contrariwise, with other types of save-or-die (death touch, lethal poison, et cetera), it doesn't happen.


----------



## DMJay (Aug 15, 2010)

I've been a PC for about 1.5 years. I am not against the DM using spells and such with save or die features. In fact I love it! When used in the right situations it gave the group a sense of danger.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 15, 2010)

"Hussar's Ever Failing Saves"?

No, I think the fellow just confuses himself as to what he's writing about -- before he writes something even more confusing.

"A 100% death rate" normally means that _everyone_ dies. If 1 in 4 (or 25 in 100) die, that's what we call a _25%_ death rate.

Even the chance of at least one death is not 100%. If the individual probability is 1 in 4, and there are 4 candidates, then there is about a 96% chance of at least 1 death.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hussar's game appears to be considerably _more_ lethal than old D&D. He can insist that it's "the same game", even though he has changed the fundamental structure.

That makes communication pretty difficult, though, with his insistence that the rest of us "must" be playing a game with which we in fact are not acquainted -- because it exists only between his ears!

The weight of evidence from his posts in various threads strongly suggests that
(A) The old game itself would actually be "too lethal" for his taste. When we get down to it,
(B) He is not interested in playing the old game with or without "SoD". The whole undertaking is tiresome to him, a means to ends that are not his.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 15, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> In every game, I've generated a six stat character based on 3-18 for base stats, given him a class, given him feats, given him skills and a race and equipment. That character has then gone on a series of adventures based around heroic fantasy tropes.
> 
> To me, that's good enough to call it D&D.




To me, that's good enough to call it T&T -- to just the same degree. So, you can have fun with your T&T, and I'll have fun with my D&D! /joking

We can take those elements -- as we can take a gridded board and some markers -- and make very different games. The game is in the _process_.

Draw a card. There's a picture of a monster on it, right? Now, you have to roll to see whether you die.

No, you don't have any opportunity to use strategy. No, you can't take precautions, or scout, or evade, or spread out your forces, or concentrate them. No, the way the monster behaves does not depend on circumstances. No, you can't talk with it.

All you can do is roll the dice.

Sorry, pal, but that is not D&D to me. A good tournament scenario for actual D&D goes beyond that, and we're talking then about a limited variant of the game for special circumstances -- not the standard.

Neither is D&D a game in which losing pieces is some incredibly rare event. Losing pieces is part of the dynamics, as in Chess or Diplomacy or Squad Leader. What "the monster squad" can do, players can do as well.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 15, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> To me, that's good enough to call it T&T...



By George, I think he's got got it!



> Sorry, pal, but that is not D&D to me.



Remember not everyone is as interested in doctrinal purity as you are. In fact, some people, like me, think D&D is all but defined by a DIY spirit, large-scale tinkering, and kitbashing, even with cherished systems like Vancian casting and saving throws.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 15, 2010)

Hussar said:


> So, what do you call what you play?  I say that I'm playing in a D&D campaign on Tuesday mornings.  I've been playing in various campaigns on Tuesday (and Thursday morning before that) for the past 10 years.  While the rules have changed three times in that time, I still think that I'm playing D&D.  Actually, the rules have changed more than 3 times considering the number of books and whatnot that has crossed the table - Unearthed Arcana, Scarred Lands with its own rules, Tome of Magic, Bo9S, now 4e.  Meh, to me, it's always been D&D.
> 
> In every game, I've generated a six stat character based on 3-18 for base stats, given him a class, given him feats, given him skills and a race and equipment.  That character has then gone on a series of adventures based around heroic fantasy tropes.



You said you played Moldvey, and yet you are picking classes AND races, and skill and feats.  And, clearly, you ARE excluding GURPS, WHFRP, and HERO.  

But, if I'm talking to the people I play with, we will specify 2E if talking about 2e and 4e if talking about 4e.  We don't specify 3E out loud, but only because that is the default presumption.  

If you don't perceive a difference worthy of note, then cool.  We do.



> It's old school gaming that you're really arguing against.  The idea that events occur in the game world that are not pre-determined by the DM.



Didn't take long for you to get back around to telling *me* what *I'm* saying and getting it wrong.



> From what you're saying, for any encounter to occur, there must be a logical narrative leading to that encounter.  Yet, ambushing the party with a medusa most certainly can flow logically.



Wrong.  I am saying you can't ignore the narrative as you did.  And I'm saying that years and years of actually playing completely contradicts the conclusion you proclaimed as fact.



> The problem is, if I do this, it's a pretty much guaranteed death sentence on one character.  That's why I don't like it.  The DM is forced by the mechanics to ensure that the party is ready for the encounter.  If he doesn't, then the encounter is too lethal.



Again, I can only accept that you have experienced this.  Therefore, my previously stated conclusion that your games are wildly different than mine.

The words "guaranteed", "forced", and "ensure" are way out of line for anything remotely resembling my games.



> The one thing pretty much everyone has agreed on in this thread is ambushing PC's with SoD creatures is a bad idea.  But, ambushing with SSSoD is mostly fine.  In 4e, you've only got a 1 in 8 chance of actually failing completely and it's quite possible to improve those odds.  That's much better, IMO, than a 100% death rate.



Again, "better" depends completely on the measure of fun you are trying to improve.

If you are playing a tactical combat battle game, then I fully concur.

If you are trying to simulate an encounter with Medusa which is consistent with myth, then SSSoD is the extreme opposite of better.  Character death is still fun, while rubbing your face in the wrongness of the story just makes the character's survival anti-climatic and pointless.  If I want to face Medusa and you use SSSoD, you have actively denied me the opportunity to do that thing I wanted to do.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 15, 2010)

Mallus said:


> Remember not everyone is as interested in doctrinal purity as you are. In fact, some people, like me, think D&D is all but defined by a DIY spirit, large-scale tinkering, and kitbashing, even with cherished systems like Vancian casting and saving throws.



Well said. Ultimately I don't care if it's "D&D" or not, as long as I enjoy playing it.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 15, 2010)

BryonD said:


> If you are trying to simulate an encounter with Medusa which is consistent with myth, then SSSoD is the extreme opposite of better.



This is absolutely true. The points to remember are:

1. Most people don't want to be consistent with myth when playing D&D, since games and stories are very different, and since typically D&D is not a game that simulates Greek myth.

2. Medusas in D&D have never been all that close to the Medusa of myth. There's more than just a petrifying gaze to Medusa.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 15, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Well said. Ultimately I don't care if it's "D&D" or not, as long as I enjoy playing it.



I'm certainly not at all interested in doctrinal purity.  If anything, I don't really care for early versions of D&D.  

And, yes, I also don't care about what its called as long as I enjoy playing it.

But this point is just a bait and switch on the actual point that was originally made, so it doesn't contribute to the discussion.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 15, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> But that doesn't mean it always is the case. Suggesting that, if the game you enjoy has an element you dislike, the best course of action is to leave the game and find a new one - rather than find a solution around the disliked element or hope the game changes to address your concerns - seems counter to the sort of customization D&D has always been about.



To me, it doesn't even have anything to do with the customization that has typically been a part of D&D. Regardless of whether customization if part of D&D, it seems quite simple: if there's a game I like 90% of, and 10% that I don't like but can adapt to make it better for me, why would I go out looking for another game? Another game might do that 10% better, but maybe I only like 80% of the other 90% of the stuff.

There's no perfect game. If there are simple work-arounds to fix the things I don't like about a game, it's probably not worth the investment of time and money it would take to learn a new system.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 15, 2010)

BryonD said:


> But this point is just a bait and switch on the actual point that was originally made, so it doesn't contribute to the discussion.



Simulating Greek myth has nothing to do with the OP either, so there you go.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 15, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> This is absolutely true. The points to remember are:
> 
> 1. Most people don't want to be consistent with myth when playing D&D, since games and stories are very different, and since typically D&D is not a game that simulates Greek myth.



I certainly agree.  That is a constant point I make, the games are VERY different and trying to convince someone that corner kicks is a good idea doesn't get anywhere when that other person is playing baseball.

That said, "Greek Myth" is a bit of red herring here because it only happens to apply to the specific example of Medusa in this discussion.

"Simulation" applies throughout the game and ties back to a vast array of sources.  The foundations of 4E are not "simulationist, with the exception of Greek Myth".  



> 2. Medusas in D&D have never been all that close to the Medusa of myth. There's more than just a petrifying gaze to Medusa.



There is more than just a petrifying gaze to Medusa in my D&D games.  

Again, as I pointed out, the fact that Medusa is a race is a HUGE deviation from myth.  

But I'm very comfortable that I make Medusa as right as I want, and the system I used supports that approach.

If you would like me to argue against having Medusa's skills, saves (er defenses), attacks, etc all mathematically founded on a common numeric monster level, I could do that as well.  

Medusa and SoD in general are simply symptoms of the design approach.  Whether one finds them symptoms of health or illness comes down to preference.  But don't mistake them as isolated issues to be resolved or causes in their own right.  It is just a topic at hand.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 15, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Simulating Greek myth has nothing to do with the OP either, so there you go.



Yes it does.  "Simulation" or not has a ton to do with whether or not SoD is fitting.  The "Greek Myth" specification is irrelevant beyond simply being an example.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 15, 2010)

BryonD said:


> There is more than just a petrifying gaze to Medusa in my D&D games.
> 
> Again, as I pointed out, the fact that Medusa is a race is a HUGE deviation from myth.
> 
> But I'm very comfortable that I make Medusa as right as I want, and the system I used supports that approach.



So I'm not sure what the issue is, then. Since medusas aren't much like Medusa, you're going to have to mod things to get what you want, regardless of the version of D&D you're running. And modding a medusa in 4E to a simple save-or-petrified is easy-peasy.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 15, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Yes it does.  "Simulation" or not has a ton to do with whether or not SoD is fitting.  The "Greek Myth" specification is irrelevant beyond simply being an example.



I thought the original point was that SoD and level drain are needed to maintain fear in the players? Fear, not simulation.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 15, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> So I'm not sure what the issue is, then. Since medusas aren't much like Medusa, you're going to have to mod things to get what you want, regardless of the version of D&D you're running.



When did I agree with this?  My point is quite the opposite.



> And modding a medusa in 4E to a simple save-or-petrified is easy-peasy.



This I agree with, and made this exact point somewhere upthread.

However, as I said 







			
				me said:
			
		

> Medusa and SoD in general are simply symptoms of the design approach.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 15, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I thought the original point was that SoD and level drain are needed to maintain fear in the players? Fear, not simulation.



Ok, I concede that.  I'll defend that the poll is HORRIBLY worded because it specifically asks for a flat up or down on SoD and makes no mention of fear.  And we are 8 days out and I don't recall "fear" having been mentioned in a single post.

I am hugely pro-SoD, but if the actual question is : "Do you need SoD for the purpose of fear?", then my answer is:

What a stupid question.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 15, 2010)

Another strange thing about the medusa of myth is that her petrification power seems to be entirely due to her ugliness. In the universe of the story one gets the impression that any sufficiently ugly being would turn onlookers to stone.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 15, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Another strange thing about the medusa of myth is that her petrification power seems to be entirely due to her ugliness. In the universe of the story one gets the impression that any sufficiently ugly being would turn onlookers to stone.



Well, it is divine ugly.  I certainly assume that the people hearing the story took for granted that the divine nature was way outside the realm of anything that could occur naturally.

Though it seems reasonable that the gods could go around putting petrifyingly ugly creatures, items, or whatever any place they wanted.  It's the Hussarian approach.  

Zeus gets mad and makes the moon so ugly it turns viewers to stone.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 15, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Yes it does.  "Simulation" or not has a ton to do with whether or not SoD is fitting.  The "Greek Myth" specification is irrelevant beyond simply being an example.



The specification is extremely important, though. "Simulation", by itself, means nothing. You need to define what you're simulating. The mechanics to best  simulate Greek myth are different from those that best simulate wuxia.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 15, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I am hugely pro-SoD, but if the actual question is : "Do you need SoD for the purpose of fear?", then my answer is:
> 
> What a stupid question.



Well yes, and I don't think the OP literally meant fear, but rather the idea that unless there are SoD effects the players feel entitled to their characters surviving anything and everything, or some such drivel.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 15, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> To me, that's good enough to call it T&T -- to just the same degree. So, you can have fun with your T&T, and I'll have fun with my D&D! /joking



Eh, T&T's just Ken St Andre's houserules for D&D. As rpgs go, it's incredibly similar to D&D and I wouldn't fault anyone for calling it D&D.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 15, 2010)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Remember not everyone is as interested in doctrinal purity as you are.



Remember, you're not just being insulting when you write that -- you are also being irrelevant. Perhaps you could instead address a subject in which I actually have expressed an interest?



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> In fact, some people, like me, think D&D is all but defined by a DIY spirit, large-scale tinkering, and kitbashing



So, D&D is ... ?







No, actually, as the term is conventionally (and in keeping with trademark) used.*

If it works for you to go to the FLGS, advertise a "D&D" game on the bulletin board, and then surprise prospective players with a concoction hitherto not known by that name then shine on you crazy diamond. ("Cool GM, but I don't know why he can't just say 'Polaris' or 'Universalis' or 'Mallus' or 'In a Wicked Age' or 'Houses of the Blooded' or whatever.")

Wherever you get the notion that there is some privileged merit in such behavior, the fact remains that it is eccentric and not merely unproductive but counter-productive of all but confusion.

The rest of the world is not engaging in some oppression of your free spirit simply because we are able to refer to books with "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover, and some indication of "edition", and know quite a bit more than that the game is not "Wiz-War" or "Magic Realm" -- that, indeed, we can know about what it _is_.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setting aside, please, the absurd semantic quibbling, the fact is that
(A) There were was something prior to "large scale tinkering" and
(B) There is something different afterward.

It seems to me reasonable that either
(A) You like that so much that you should like it even better with something you find even less satisfactory to start. In that case, you can stop already with the complaining about what you actually enjoy, and move along to that something else even more opposed to your tastes.
or
(B) You actually don't like rebuilding so much as you like having a game that you enjoy playing. In that case, you can stop already complaining about what nobody put a gun to your head and made you play in the first place, and move along to something more aligned with your tastes.

In either case, your not liking the game is a matter of personal preference, not some universal standard by which liking it is wrong. This is the point some people have a problem sorting out.

They mistake their tastes for objective standards, and "D&D" for whatever they have in mind. Thus, their logic leads to the conclusion that anything called "D&D" is an "inferior D&D" to the extent that it is different from that ideal.

It is as if someone who does not like tomatoes were to insist that the best tomato is a potato. What in blazes is the point?!

If you think that the purpose of a monster must be to get into, and lose, a fight with the players' forces, then you are thinking along quite different lines than the old D&D game in a lot of ways. Odds are that you have a list of other objectives likewise at odds with many of the same (and many other) elements of design.

It's the same as if you came to the board game Frag and hated the dice rolls, and the drawing of cards, and the shooting, and the starting over when a piece is killed, and the scoring. That's the game, I am afraid. You can take the map and pawns and make up some other set of objectives and procedures -- but then it really would not be helpful to call it "the same game".

*[In case the picture link gets broken, it's Ed "Big Daddy" Roth's Rat Fink.]


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 15, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Eh, T&T's just Ken St Andre's houserules for D&D. As rpgs go, it's incredibly similar to D&D and I wouldn't fault anyone for calling it D&D.




I would say that the ways it is notably similar (and to what) are precisely those that offend the people who will deny up and down that there is any "D&D" in the first place to which anything could be similar -- or, by the same measure, different. I find it incredible that you find anything incredible in the similarities.

The "playing D&D" that is in fact relevant is playing the generic "dungeon game". It is extremely old news that this colloquial usage is a stab in the back to the value of the trademark. Thus, the Phoenix people had to come up with another name when they published their game.

Ken's proposal, IIRC, was something like "Caverns & Catoblepas". (He did better when he came up with "Wasteland" for the superb computer RPG.)

Anyhow, it is the very rejection of the principles of the old "dungeon game" that is significant here.

"Save or die" is certainly in T&T, at any rate, along with heaps more of the alternately wildly random and crushingly deterministic (which gets more chiaroscuro in later editions).


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 16, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I thought the original point was that SoD and level drain are needed to maintain fear in the players? Fear, not simulation.



Huh?

If a basilisk has a turn-to-stone gaze in myth, then if the party meets a basilisk in the game any simulation of the myth kinda dictates that said basilisk also have a turn-to-stone gaze effect in the game.

Turn-to-stone effects have, in the game, usually been handled by a SoD mechanic - or SSSoD in 4e - so there's the simulation.

Players don't often want their characters turning to stone.  There's the fear.

Lan-"ay, marry, there's the rub"-efan


----------



## Hussar (Aug 16, 2010)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, doesn't a basilisk cause you to explode in fire, not turn to stone, in myth?

As far as 100% goes - sorry, I wasn't perfectly clear for the pedantic amongst us.  100% was, as was pretty obvious in context, refering to the times, not numbers of characters.

If you have a 50/50 chance of dying and have to make 4 saves, then the chance of (any given character) is very close to 100%.

Of course, everyone here knew that.

Dasuul - yup, it's pretty much the combination of SoD with the gaze (or any area of effect) mechanic that is my specific beef.  The fact that any AoE SoD effect will result in at least one death almost every time, barring something that specifically blocks the effect, makes it far too powerful.

A snakes SoD bite isn't quite as bad, since it's only one character.  Although, I do prefer the 3e mechanics of ability damage to reduce the lethality of poison.

AFAICT - Ariosto is actually agreeing with me.  If it says D&D on the cover, it's D&D.  End of story.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 16, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but, doesn't a basilisk cause you to explode in fire, not turn to stone, in myth?



If so, then substitute "medusa" or "gorgon" or even "cockatrice" (though I'm not sure offhand if their stoning is done by gaze or by touch) in what I wrote above.  My point still stands.

Lan-"medusa victims in a cart = the rolling stones"-efan


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 16, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The fact that any AoE SoD effect will result in at least one death almost every time, barring something that specifically blocks the effect, makes it far too powerful.




It's hard to know just what game you're playing, but I gather that it is related to 3e.

First of all, your complaint has to do with treating the phenomenon as an "area of effect attack", like a fireball. (You do know, don't you, that in old D&D a fireball from a peer is effectively "save or die" on average to as many magic-users as one may have opportunity to fry?)

So, it is not "SoD" itself with which you take issue, but how it is applied in certain cases in your game.

In the 1st ed. _Monster Manual_, the basilisk "is able to turn to stone any fleshly creature which meets its glance." (In the original D&D set, it did likewise to "those whom it touches".)

Now, that is on the face of it (!) not an "area of effect attack". It is specifically a _mutual_ line of sight attack. There is no suggestion whatsoever of multiple attacks. The basilisk's "NO. OF ATTACKS" entry reads "1".

*Nor does it specifically entail a saving throw!*

This is, basically, a "do and die" situation. The DM however is free (and encouraged, in the DMG) to give characters and monsters alike a chance (however slender) to avoid even apparently certain doom. The DMG also emphasizes the confused nature of a melee, the uncertainty of any undertaking -- even of choosing which foe to attack. Some sort of roll, whether "to hit" or "to save", nearly always applies.

Theoretically, more than one creature at once could _choose_ to look the basilisk in the eyes, and it could take the latter but seconds to shift its own gaze to fulfill their effective self-destruction. Should such a case ever arise in the midst of a melee, I would be inclined to permit only two such attacks per round. However, I would not quibble if a DM ruled that any number can thus commit suicide in a single round.

More typically, people are trying _not_ to meet the monster's gaze, while it is trying to maneuver so that they do so by accident. This -- like footwork and fencing with more conventional weapons -- is for game purposes usually most conveniently handled with a dice-roll.

The bottom line to which we return is that it is normally subject to the same conditions as any other attack: once per round, dependent on a roll for success. As with any other attack, there are prerequisites to make it possible in the first place, and factors that make it more difficult.

Obviously, someone who cannot see the basilisk at all simply cannot "meet its gaze". There is a spectrum of circumstances -- and thus of probabilities -- between that and being unable to avoid meeting the gaze.

The post grows long, so I postpone examination of the 3.5e rules. I hope it is clear that any rule that makes the basilisk's gaze an "area of effect attack" is a departure from the original game context.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 16, 2010)

Here is a passage from the 1st DMG that I have neglected on some number of occasions:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Certain Failure:* As shown on the table, a 1 is ALWAYS a failure, regardless of magical modifiers to the contrary. However, as DM you may adjust such failures according to prevailing circumstances, although any adjudication which negates failure on a roll of 1 is not recommended at all. Another rule you may wish to consider is allowing a save (where applicable) on a natural 20, regardless of penalties.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The impression I get from this (in combination with other passages) is that a random element figures to a significant degree as essential to the game. Very little, it seems, is to be certain!


----------



## BryonD (Aug 16, 2010)

Hussar said:


> If it says D&D on the cover, it's D&D.  End of story.



I agree 100%.  But this shallow brand name only position completely misses the point of the actual discussion.  It isn't false, but the idea that it is helpful is simply amusing.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 16, 2010)

For those who may still honestly not understand, a fact of life is that different people have different preferences that exist independently of, and often prior to, the existence of any particular rules-book with "Dungeons & Dragons" (or anything else) on the cover.

Another fact of life is that the different games were designed  by different people with different objectives corresponding to different preferences in the demographic of potential players/ DMs/ purchasers.

A fact of game design is that, however modular they may be, it is the interaction of the parts that makes the game. Changing one changes the effects of others.

A special problem in the case of RPGs is that many people have difficulty even recognizing as game-design elements at all things that can be _much_ more fundamental than the "mechanical" details. The euphemism "play style" tends -- along with "fluff" -- to belittle all higher-order concerns as insignificant.

A special problem in the case of D&D is that many people mistake the brand name for the game. This is a problem because the publisher's business model is based on periodically selling a different game. It must be sufficiently different to warrant purchase by those who already have the last one but either (a) want something different or (b) want to "keep current". Even as it is really, in practice, quite important to some people that it is not so, they like paradoxically to insist that "the game remains the same".

The original generic "dungeon game" is a very broad basis for comparison by which one theoretically could say that, e.g., "AD&D is just another version of RuneQuest". This is in fact not how the line goes. Overwhelmingly, the favored claim is that something or other is (in all that "really" matters) just like the seminal Dungeons & Dragons game.

Like it or not, though, that game had certain characteristics. From Day One, quite a few people have in fact _not_ liked those characteristics. They did not like the set-up. They did not like the goals. They did not like the plays. They did not like the penalties.

They might still like _a_ "dungeon game", in a sense that can be as loose as liking the imagery that can as readily make the same "Euro-style" board game design either that or a "farming game" or pretty much any other kind of game that may be in vogue.

That sense does not go very far as a helpful distinction. The success of D&D led to a flood of games in one way or another "about" dwarves and hobbits stealing gold from dragons and other beasties in subterranean mazes.

When we get down to actual game design, that is so superficial that it can often be left to the art department. "File off the serial numbers" and you get ... well, an awful lot of what we have gotten over the past 36 years.

There are much more important questions as to what the game is about. For instance, is it about mapping a level in order to identify hazards and points-scoring objectives? Is it about going in, potentially over several tries, to bypass or beat the hazards and score the points? Is it about maximizing the points scored per "life", when loss of the life is an ever-present risk?

There is, from what I have seen and heard, an interesting phenomenon in the video-game world. A game such as _Gauntlet_, which is potentially endless, can still fascinate many players whose tastes in games developed in the 1980s. People without that background are much more likely to lose interest as soon as they realize that there is no final "boss" to beat, no way conclusively to "win the game".

There is a clear difference in context between the arcade, in which continued play requires either skill or cold cash, and the console or PC environment. There are doubtless other influences as well. To a certain extent, human beings tend to be naturally inclined to conservatism. A view that is popular has an inertia, a tendency to remain popular because it is popular.

When the makeup of the significant population changes, what is popular can change. When something that was formerly the province of a narrow demographic appeals to a different and larger demographic, the change can be both thorough and sudden. (The same can happen in reverse, which may have been one factor contributing to the decline of video arcades.)

At the same time, there can be a sense that some things are nonetheless "proper" because they are traditional. It may be hard for people to see how some things really are not working for them, because they have a vested interest in the prestige associated with traditions.

When a whole complex of concepts is associated with a high-value name, this can get very problematic. I expect that most readers can think of examples from the fields of politics and religion.

The bottom line for most people is that it is not the name but the qualities that determine whether the phenomenon is ultimately pleasing. Each of us desires certain ends, which may be opposed to another's desires. Different means are conducive to different ends.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 17, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I agree 100%.  But this shallow brand name only position completely misses the point of the actual discussion.  It isn't false, but the idea that it is helpful is simply amusing.




For someone who complains often of me playing silly buggers with meaning, you're pretty quick to pull a quote out of context.  I'm not the one saying that, someone else is.

But, this is futile.  You're simply going to accuse me of deliberately misinterpreting yet again.

Ariosto - it's been so long since I've looked at a 1e Monster Manual that I'll take your word for how the mechanics work.  I don't recall if a basilisk's gaze was an area of affect attack or not.  If it wasn't, then I'm actually pretty happy with the way it is in that ruleset.  It stops being an instant death sentence for one PC because it's not forcing saves on the entire group.

I believe I did say that before.  The issue isn't so much SoD, it's the combination of SoD with an AoE attack.  Even fireball isn't really SoD.  A 5 die fireball averages 17 points of damage.  Most 5th level characters (barring wizards) have more than 7 hit points (where the spell becomes an ACTUAL save or die).  By and large, fireball isn't going to be save or die.

Now, to be fair, dragons breath is one where I don't mind it so much.  But, then again, a dragon is one creature where I would agree that foreshadowing is a very good idea.  A dragon encounter should always be an epic event IMO, and that gives the PC's a chance to prepare proper counters.

A medusa?  Not so much.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 17, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm not the one saying that, someone else is.



Just what on Earth do you mean by that?



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> By and large, fireball isn't going to be save or die.



By and large, it is going to be save or die for m-us, doing on average one point per level more than they have -- or even more for full-fledged wizards (a hit dice's worth more per level over 11th with Supp. I or 1st ed. AD&D).

A 22nd level m-u with average rolls has just 38.5 h.p., and an average 22-dice fireball does 38.5 points of damage _with_ successful save. Of course, in the unlikely event of such a neat knock out, one might have more interesting plans for one's rival than merely slitting his or her throat. Also of course, the merely average to start tend to be a bit more when (if) they manage to survive so long!

Meanwhile, however, a 26th-level fighter with average rolls has 100.5 h.p.. With a constitution of 15, that goes up to 109.5. With a failed save and 5 pips on each of those 22 damage dice, that's 110 points. That's probably also less likely than the fighter taking _two_ fireballs and having 30+ points left. With a constitution of 16, he might well take _three_ fireballs and be standing. With a constitution of 18, he might (42% chance of making 3 saves) be standing with 20+ points left.

Results certainly can depart from average. Once in a blue moon, a 22-dice lightning bolt does just 11 points -- or the maximum of 132.


----------



## Nagol (Aug 17, 2010)

Hussar said:


> For someone who complains often of me playing silly buggers with meaning, you're pretty quick to pull a quote out of context.  I'm not the one saying that, someone else is.
> 
> But, this is futile.  You're simply going to accuse me of deliberately misinterpreting yet again.
> 
> ...




Actually, you died if the blow that dropped you took you below -3.  A typical Magic-User had 5d4 hp -- 12.5 hp.  An average fireball/lightning bolt killed you if you fail.  Even thieves were touchy and typically on the edge of death.


----------



## jdrakeh (Aug 17, 2010)

I am a DM. Yay for Save or Die. I find that the threat of instantaneous death helps keep adventurers on their toes. The key is to not use it _often_. Otherwise, the action slows to a complete stop as ultra-paranoid characters try to feel out every inch of a dungeon for traps.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 17, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Not really surprising considering how close Rolemaster and D&D are as games.



Except the one part where they differ is in ease of PC-creation - RM is much worse in this respect compared to any version of D&D except perhaps 3E - and so there really is no game-design excuse for using save-or-die as a mechanic.

HARP, which in many repsects is RM light, avoids save-or-die (and death crit) issues both by toning down many magical effects, and by implementing a Fate Point system.



billd91 said:


> An efficient and effective player, who probably already has a set of interesting character ideas he wants to try and simply had to pick one for the game in the first place, can crank out a character in virtually any game in a short time.



This isn't true for Rolemaster. Very experienced, efficient, effective RM players who have a good idea of the PC they want to play can easily take 3 or more hours to produce a mid- to high level RM PC.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 17, 2010)

Nagol said:


> Actually, you died if the blow that dropped you took you below -3.  A typical Magic-User had 5d4 hp -- 12.5 hp.  An average fireball/lightning bolt killed you if you fail.  Even thieves were touchy and typically on the edge of death.



I get the very strong impression that Hussar is talking about 3E, and/or about common ways of running 2nd ed AD&D, in which (i) death is at -10, and (ii) it is pretty standard to run gaze attacks as a type of area attack.

I _think_ I agree with a fair bit of what Ariosto is saying - namely, that pre-2nd ed versions of D&D presupposed quick and failry frequent generation of PCs, and that keeping parts of the game system in 3E (like save-or-die) while changing other parts (quick PC creation, hp totals, damage caps etc) can reduce the game's ability to provide satisfactory play to many players - both those looking for old-style play _and_ those looking for story/PC-intensive play.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 17, 2010)

Nagol said:


> Actually, you died if the blow that dropped you took you below -3.  A typical Magic-User had 5d4 hp -- 12.5 hp.  An average fireball/lightning bolt killed you if you fail.  Even thieves were touchy and typically on the edge of death.




Huh.  Learn something new every day.  Thought you could go to -9 in 1e too.  We always played that way.  Cool.  I was just mentioning in another thread that I try to avoid talking about 1e mechanics cos I just don't know them that well.

The way I see this, when faced with a SoD AOE ability, there are three approaches being talked about here:

1.  Ignore it.  Let the dice fall where they may.  If half the party dies, so be it.  In my mind, this is an approach that works best with a system with very fast character generation and/or playing multiple PC's.

2.  Deal with it "in world".  Try to ameliorate the lethality of the encounter by dropping lots of information on the players so that they have ample opportunity to prepare for the encounter.

3.  Deal with it mechanically.  Ameliorate the lethality of the encounter by reducing the lethality of the ability.  Obviously, this is my option of choice.  

At the end of the day, the option you choose should best fit with how your campaign works.  I dislike option 1 because I've found that frequent character death tends to reduce the effort players put into their characters.  I dislike option 2 because I find it too limiting.  Sometimes I want to be able to ambush the party with a bodak, but, as it's written in 3e, that's just too lethal for me.  

So, I go with option 3, because it fits best with me.  I don't see D&D as a game for recreating mythology, so, playing silly buggers with a medusa's gaze doesn't faze me in the slightest.  I've already accepted that a medusa is not The Medusa of legend, so, taking a couple of steps further doesn't bother me.

Obviously opinions vary on this.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 17, 2010)

Hussar said:


> 1.  Ignore it.  Let the dice fall where they may.  If half the party dies, so be it.  In my mind, this is an approach that works best with a system with very fast character generation and/or playing multiple PC's.
> 
> 2.  Deal with it "in world".  Try to ameliorate the lethality of the encounter by dropping lots of information on the players so that they have ample opportunity to prepare for the encounter.
> 
> 3.  Deal with it mechanically.  Ameliorate the lethality of the encounter by reducing the lethality of the ability.  Obviously, this is my option of choice.



 A nice summary list.

Just a quibble, though: you've omitted the second part of item 2.  You've mentioned the in-world approach of warning players.  But there is also item 2.b (my preferred approach) which is "Run the SoD monsters interestingly, as if they are real creatures with motives and/or tactics that don't always involve the SoD effect as their first attack."   Just as in real life not every poisonous creature strikes immediately, so too not every SoD-capable creature uses its SoD effect at the drop of a hat.

Basilisks don't eat stone, and not every medusa is a statue collector.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Obviously opinions vary on this.



But of course, yes.  This.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 17, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Thought you could go to -9 in 1e too.



Sometimes you can. It depends on how you get there.

With the less generous option, a blow that takes you below 0 kills you. Brought to exactly 0, you are unconscious and dying, losing 1 point per round until attended to.

It is the more generous option that extends the "buffer" to negative 3. With that option, a creature with just 1 hit point has only a 50% chance of immediate death if hit for 1d8 damage.

In either case, a second blow certainly kills the hapless victim. So does "bleeding" to -10.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 17, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Sometimes I want to be able to ambush the party with a bodak, but, as it's written in 3e, that's just too lethal for me.





You might try leaving out the third paragraph beneath the "Gaze Attacks" heading at 3.5 DMG p. 294:

"Each character within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw (which can be a Fortitude or Will save) each round at the beginning of his turn."

That leaves the provision, in the sixth paragraph, to use the gaze as an attack action.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 18, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Huh.  Learn something new every day.  Thought you could go to -9 in 1e too.



I *think* death at -10 was an option presented in an early Dragon mag. article - certainly long before Unearthed Arcana came out (or is it even presented as an option as early as the 1e DMG?).  I know we've played it that way since about the end of the last ice age; and the rule came from somewhere, we didn't completely dream it up.

Lan-"sometimes a character can be well above -10 and still die, by a variety of means..."-efan


----------



## Hussar (Aug 18, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> You might try leaving out the third paragraph beneath the "Gaze Attacks" heading at 3.5 DMG p. 294:
> 
> "Each character within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw (which can be a Fortitude or Will save) each round at the beginning of his turn."
> 
> That leaves the provision, in the sixth paragraph, to use the gaze as an attack action.




Funnily enough, this is how 4e handles it.  A gaze attack has to "hit" a particular defense before the saving throws kick in.  Suits my purposes rather well.  And, apparently, is something that was done back in the day as well.  



> Basilisks don't eat stone, and not every medusa is a statue collector.




Well, basilisks aren't exactly the sharpest pencil in the box.  I'm not really sure if they'd have the tactical werewithal to turn off their gaze.  But, I do get your point.  

Although, to be fair, I don't really have a problem with the idea of Basilisks eating stone.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 18, 2010)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> or is it even presented as an option as early as the 1e DMG?



What I paraphrased in post #425 above is from 1st DMG p. 82, "Zero Hit Points".

The big difference from 3e is that a single blow can kill immediately if it takes you to -1 (or -4, as the case may be), or if you are already at 0 or in negative points.

In 3e, I think it is _only_ reduction to -10 that kills. That means a coup de grace can easily take a couple or more hits.

In AD&D, "Any character brought to 0 (or fewer) hit points and then revived will remain in coma for 1-6 turns. Thereafter, he or she must rest for a full week, minimum." So, there's no popping back into the fight just because potions or cure spells have equipped you with hit points. A _heal_ spell removes the prohibition of vigorous activity.

Further, "If any creature reaches a state of -6 or greater negative points before being revived, this could indicate scarring or the loss of some member."

In the original D&D set, positive hit points alone indicate "the number of points of damage the character could sustain before death. Whether sustaining accumulative hits will otherwise affect a character is left to the discretion of the referee."


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 19, 2010)

jdrakeh said:


> I am a DM. Yay for Save or Die. I find that the threat of instantaneous death helps keep adventurers on their toes. The key is to not use it _often_. Otherwise, the action slows to a complete stop as ultra-paranoid characters try to feel out every inch of a dungeon for traps.



Hehe. Oh yeah, been there. _As a player_, I might add. 

It was actually a (sorta peculiar. . .) kind of fun all its own, if I recall 100% correctly. Checking for every [known] possible kind of freakin' trap/trick/whatever, nearly every damn step. Heh. Different, I'll give it that. The equipment lists alone were rather novel. . .


----------



## Zhaleskra (Aug 19, 2010)

I think some monsters not being able to kill your PC instantly takes away the scary factor. That said, what I don't like is the damage if you do save on Save or Dies as it is usually enough to kill your character outright anyway.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 19, 2010)

You know, all this talk about save or die is making me just _slightly_ nostalgic for the chance of (almost) instant death. 

I'm toying with the idea that rolling a natural 1 on a saving throw made at the end of your turn (so that this does not affect bonus saves granted by allies) means you must make another, immediate saving throw. If you pass that saving throw, you gain no benefit, but if you fail, it is counted as a second failure. And if you roll a natural 1 on your second saving throw, you get to roll a third one, and so on. 

With this house rule, it becomes theoretically possible (though still highly unlikely) for a character to fail three death saves in one round, or to be petrified by a medusa's gaze after just one turn. 

Of course, me being the tenderhearted DM that I am, I will also ensure that some way to undo any semi-permanent conditions (e.g. petrification or death) arising from the failed saving throws will present itself. After I have derived sufficient enjoyment from the players' shocked (save ends); _first failed save:_ flabbergasted (save ends); _second failed save:_ consternated until a solution is found conditions, of course.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 19, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> In 3e, I think it is _only_ reduction to -10 that kills. That means a coup de grace can easily take a couple or more hits.



Coup de grace forces a Fort save (DC 10+damage) so you don't need to just get to -10. There's also the massive damage save.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 19, 2010)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Coup de grace forces a Fort save (DC 10+damage) so you don't need to just get to -10. There's also the massive damage save.




So what you're saying is a coup de grace is a SoD attack and therefore no good?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 19, 2010)

I think 3e has more instant death attacks than any previous edition. Coup de grace, massive damage (50hp+ forces save), massive *amounts* of damage such as charges and full attacks, monster grapples (not quite instant but there's no escape) and traditional SoDs. A sudden maximised empowered scorching ray is nothing to sneeze at, either.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 19, 2010)

Reynard said:


> So what you're saying is a coup de grace is a SoD attack and therefore no good?




While I know this is tongue in cheek, I think there's been enough misunderstanding in this thread that I just want to be very clear.

It's not that all SoD is bad.  My specific bitch is with area of effect SoD abilities that, because of the math of the game, leads to unacceptably (IMO anyway) high chances of character death.

Having a single target SoD ability isn't anywhere near so bad.  And in this specific case, by the time you're in a position to be on the receiving end of SoD, likely a whole lot of things have gone wrong beforehand.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 19, 2010)

Hussar said:


> While I know this is tongue in cheek, I think there's been enough misunderstanding in this thread that I just want to be very clear.



Indeed. If you're the target of a coup de grace, you had to get to that situation first. It's the culmination of something, not the beginning.

It's easy to take things too literally. When I say I don't like SoD, I mean I don't like it generally, not that it can never have a place in the game. If I have to choose between lots of SoD, or no SoD, I will choose no SoD. But I don't have to make that choice. I can choose a third option, SoD being very rare and used only in certain circumstances.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 20, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Indeed. If you're the target of a coup de grace, you had to get to that situation first. It's the culmination of something, not the beginning.




My argument about all SoD effects.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 20, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> My argument about all SoD effects.




I think the steps that lead to Coup De Grace (having already been hit by enough overwhelming force to be unconscious, or targeted by a specific spell or effect that renders you helpless) are a much higher treshold, and much more based on your own rolls and actions, than entering an encounter without having learned in advance that you will be facing Save or Die effects (which is much more reliant on the DM).


----------



## Hussar (Aug 20, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> My argument about all SoD effects.




I figured that would come up.

Hrm, my character, in order to be targeted by a cdg attack, needs to be either:

a) rendered completely helpless magically
b) beaten unconcious through non-lethal damage
c) asleep

Now, is it good encounter design to have an invisible thief sneak into the character's room, without any warning, and cdg him in his sleep?

Because that's what putting a medusa on a random encounter table basically works out to.

Now, I know you can manipulate the situation so that the player always has the ability to know that the SoD encounter is coming and can react accordingly, but, to me, that's too heavy handed.  It's pretty obvious what's going on when every stranger I meet suddenly goes out of his way to mention that there is a specific kind of creature in that area.  Never mind the fifteen other kinds of creatures there.  They might or might not get mentioned.  But every SoD creature will always be known.

Me, I'd rather just lower the lethality and then treat SoD creatures just like any other creature.  Much less work for me as a DM, much better encounter design, and a much better designed monster that is no longer a one trick pony.

Makes me perfectly happy.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 20, 2010)

<double post>


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 20, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Because that's what putting a medusa on a random encounter table basically works out to.
> 
> Now, I know you can manipulate the situation so that the player always has the ability to know that the SoD encounter is coming and can react accordingly, but, to me, that's too heavy handed.  It's pretty obvious what's going on when every stranger I meet suddenly goes out of his way to mention that there is a specific kind of creature in that area.  Never mind the fifteen other kinds of creatures there.  They might or might not get mentioned.  But every SoD creature will always be known.




Well, once again this comes down to how you regard save-or-die. If you think of it as an auto-kill, which you can only survive by great good fortune and the grace of the gods, then it becomes a lot more logical that creatures with such abilities would be whispered of and feared.

It's like dragons. A dragon is the sort of monster that makes its presence felt in the lands about. The peasants might not know about the owlbear den in the deep woods or the wights in the lost elven burial grounds, but they'll damn well know about the dragon under the mountain. Save-or-die monsters, if you're going to use them, should be like that.

Does this mean they don't belong on random monster tables? Damn straight it means they don't belong on random monster tables. If I were going to try to put SoD monsters back into the game, I would create a separate category for them and creatures like them--call it "legendary." The categorization serves as notice to the DM that This Monster Is Special and PCs should not come on it unexpectedly.

I'd also change the rules so that the chance of making the save is minimal--you should have to roll 17+, sometimes even a natural 20. A PC targeted by one of these effects should feel lucky when they survive, rather than unlucky when they don't. And DMs should be under no illusion that throwing these things around casually will result in anything but a TPK.

Don't make it "save or die." Make it "[size=+2]*DIE*[/size] [size=-2]unless you save[/size]."


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 20, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Hrm, my character, in order to be targeted by a cdg attack, needs to be either:
> 
> a) rendered completely helpless magically
> b) beaten unconcious through non-lethal damage
> c) asleep



Seriously? So, there's no giving a coup de grace to someone who has, say, been skewered in the guts?

If that's so, then the eccentric 3e usage is not so relevant to the context in which it was raised in the first place: instant death from a blow to a character at 0 or negative points (from _whatever_ cause) in AD&D.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 20, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Now, is it good encounter design to have an invisible thief sneak into the character's room, without any warning, and cdg him in his sleep?




Depends.

Or - 

Define "warning".

If three game months ago the PCs cheesed off the assassin's guild and blew town, then came back and forgot they had enemies about, then I think them waking up in pools of their own blood as "examples" to other hero types (i.e. the players' new characters) is totally valid.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 20, 2010)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Does this mean they don't belong on random monster tables? Damn straight it means they don't belong on random monster tables.



Huh??

I've got to do what, then? Use simulation algorithms to determine the position and vector of Slimy the Worm at every moment?

Not happening! I'll go for the probabilistic approach, concerned only with the question that really matters: whether Slimy is (or is probably soon to be) where the players can perceive it. If some "modern" gamer has a problem with that, then he can look elsewhere for his game.

For plenty of the rest of us, encounter tables have worked plenty fine for a mighty long time.

Also, dragons turned into demigods is a taste I do not share, at least in D&D. Dragons, death, wishes -- a lot of stuff gets blown way out of proportion, relative to the old game, in (I gather) 2e and onward. It's just a different kind of fun.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 20, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Now, is it good encounter design to have an invisible thief sneak into the character's room, without any warning, and cdg him in his sleep?
> 
> Because that's what putting a medusa on a random encounter table basically works out to.



Purely hypothetically.....

If there was one guy out there somewhere that didn't let the rules use them and refused to be a blind slave to random encounter tables, would you concede that this example is completely moot to this one odd person?


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 20, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Huh??
> 
> I've got to do what, then? Use simulation algorithms to determine the position and vector of Slimy the Worm at every moment?
> 
> ...




If you're using encounter tables to determine _where a monster is in a dungeon_, I've got no problem with that, so long as basic logic applies. (If a fire elemental wanders onto an island in the middle of an underground lake, I will have questions.)

If you're using encounter tables to determine _what monsters are in a dungeon_--like the general-purpose encounter tables in the 1E DMG--then I would have an objection to it. Aside from the fact that I think the DM should be stocking the dungeon based on what it would logically contain rather than the whim of the dice, having Medusa on a random encounter table of this type puts save-or-die back into the realm of "PC dies suddenly with no reasonable chance to prevent it, other than staying home on the family farm." You may be okay with that; I hate it and have no desire to see it return.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 20, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I think the steps that lead to Coup De Grace (having already been hit by enough overwhelming force to be unconscious, or targeted by a specific spell or effect that renders you helpless) are a much higher treshold, and much more based on your own rolls and actions, than entering an encounter without having learned in advance that you will be facing Save or Die effects (which is much more reliant on the DM).



Obviously both our game preferences and actual at table experiences differ rather wildly.  Perhaps we should each play different games.....


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 20, 2010)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> If you're using encounter tables to determine _what monsters are in a dungeon_--like the general-purpose encounter tables in the 1E DMG--then I do have an objection to it.




My biggest objection to doing only what you describe is that it might _leave out_ too many monsters!

A bit of design is likely to produce more interesting results than a dungeon stocked entirely at random -- or entirely _without_ the inspiration of things that surprise even the designer.

It strikes me as hardly relevant which way a basilisk ended up on the 4th level. The chance of meeting one there is part of the game, a game that I enjoy playing.

I might not so much enjoy a game in which one can encounter a bevy of beholders on the first level. That would definitely not be a product of the tables, which yield even one only on the 8th level or deeper.

It would be a product of someone who _ignored_ those tables.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 21, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Now, is it good encounter design to have an invisible thief sneak into the character's room, without any warning, and cdg him in his sleep?
> 
> Because that's what putting a medusa on a random encounter table basically works out to.




Reaction rolls.

The encounter with the medusa is random; so is her reaction to the PCs (perhaps modified by Charisma?).  My favourite table is from B/X (I use it for my 4E game); the chance of the medusa just deciding to stone everyone without any attempt to parley is slim.  More likely she'll show up with a mask and engage in dialogue.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 21, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Purely hypothetically.....
> 
> If there was one guy out there somewhere that didn't let the rules use them and refused to be a blind slave to random encounter tables, would you concede that this example is completely moot to this one odd person?




Actually BryonD, I'm not quite sure what you mean here.  

Are you saying that no one ever used a SoD monster in a random encounter table?  Or that no adventure ever bombed the party with a SoD creature without warning?

Cos, if that's what you're saying, you'd be wrong.  Heck, besides the bodak assassins in Savage Tide, there is an encounter with a basilisk with no warning, and no possibility of warning either.



LostSoul said:


> Reaction rolls.
> 
> The encounter with the medusa is random; so is her reaction to the PCs (perhaps modified by Charisma?).  My favourite table is from B/X (I use it for my 4E game); the chance of the medusa just deciding to stone everyone without any attempt to parley is slim.  More likely she'll show up with a mask and engage in dialogue.




And if the reaction is negative?  After all, it's perfectly possible.  I can't recall the exact table you're talking about (although I do remember it exists) but the chances for negative reactions are about the same as positive ones IIRC.

Never mind a medusa, how about a basilisk then?


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 21, 2010)

"I'm tired of fast food."
"Me too. Let's chat up this 'metal armored and carrying treasure' dish."

Lost Soul, is that the Monster Reaction table at B24? The original (D&D Vol. 1 _Men & Magic_) context, curiously, was that of the Retainer Reaction table at B21. The 1/36 chance of attack thus assumed that the monsters
(a) were of the same basic alignment as the player-character, and
(b) had been offered some reward ("not just sparing its life, for example")

I suspect many people have used that for general monster encounters, but there is actually a more general one in Volume 3:
2-5 negative reaction
6-8 uncertain reaction
9-12 positive reaction

Unfortunately, however, that comes after a note that "monsters will automatically attack and/or pursue any characters they 'see', with the exception of those monsters which are intelligent enough to avoid an obviously superior force."

I guess about a decade of chasing delvers was enough to mellow the monsters a bit!


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 21, 2010)

Hussar said:


> And if the reaction is negative?  After all, it's perfectly possible.  I can't recall the exact table you're talking about (although I do remember it exists) but the chances for negative reactions are about the same as positive ones IIRC.
> 
> Never mind a medusa, how about a basilisk then?




It is the table on page B24 of the Basic D&D book; on a 2 on 2d6 it's "Immediate Attack".  The rest of the results tend towards hostile (in my reading) but leave opportunities for talky-talk.



Ariosto said:


> I guess about a decade of chasing delvers was enough to mellow the monsters a bit!




Heh, I guess so!  I like that reaction table; it's simple but powerful.  That's why I stole it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 21, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I figured that would come up.




Well you should have.



> Now, is it good encounter design to have an invisible thief sneak into the character's room, without any warning, and cdg him in his sleep?
> 
> Because that's what putting a medusa on a random encounter table basically works out to.




Only if you assume that the creatures on your encounter table don't have a "footprint" in the area they wander.  If you remember your own random encounter with a wandering SoD creature (which you mentioned above), not only did the creature's "footprint" make itself known (by the actions of the locals), but the encounter offered some real regional verisimilitude.  Likewise, if a medusa is wandering the ruins, there will be signs that something is wandering the ruins capable of petrification.  You might not know exactly what, and it might actually be a red herring (old statues in ruins), but she cannot avoid leaving clues.


RC


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 21, 2010)

There is something I like - for a certain type of game - about knowing that, every once in a while, you are going to get screwed.  

I don't know why.  Maybe it helps get rid of overplanning?  "There is a chance that we'll turn the corner and a basilisk will stone us, so we don't need to obsess about every little choice we make."  Maybe that's it, or part of it, I don't know.  Maybe I just like Rogue-like games!


----------



## Hussar (Aug 24, 2010)

RC said:
			
		

> and it might actually be a red herring (old statues in ruins), but she cannot avoid leaving clues.




And we're back to the idea that every medusa is stupid.  She can't "avoid" leaving clues?  Really?  She doesn't have a hammer?  While it might be obvious to see strange statues around, seeing broken rubble in caverns generally isn't going to arouse suspicion.

I simply disagree with your presumption that every creature, particularly an intelligent one that is as intelligent as humans, would be so careless as to announce its presence everywhere it goes.  Basilisk?  Sure, I can see that, unless, of course, it actually eats stone (or it's a more mythological one where you burst into flames), but a medusa?  It's not stupid.  Why would it announce its presence.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I simply disagree with your presumption that every creature, particularly an intelligent one that is as intelligent as humans, would be so careless as to announce its presence everywhere it goes.  Basilisk?  Sure, I can see that, unless, of course, it actually eats stone (or it's a more mythological one where you burst into flames), but a medusa?  It's not stupid.  Why would it announce its presence.



That's a good point that I hadn't really considered before. It's certainly a blow to verisimilitude if these monsters leave clues around when they can avoid it. I can see a certain amount from a dramatic license sort of view, but every intelligent SoD monster doesn't realize that these clues are dead giveaways?


----------



## BryonD (Aug 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> And we're back to the idea that every medusa is stupid.  She can't "avoid" leaving clues?  Really?  She doesn't have a hammer?  While it might be obvious to see strange statues around, seeing broken rubble in caverns generally isn't going to arouse suspicion.



Shrug.  Big shrug.

I've never thought of the original Medusa of myth as being particularly stupid.  But everyone knew where she was.  That is part of the myth itself.

I really think you are failing to grasp that concept.  Which is FINE, if you don't want to play that way.  But, trust us, there is a preference which is different than yours.

I can most certainly imagine of a medusa example in which much care is taken to disguise her presence.  And the level appropriateness of this scenario is probably higher.  But, the hammer idea just seems to be going around your elbow to get to your ear.  To even bring such up just re-SCREAMS "we play radically different games with fundamentally different goals, values, and presumptions."

And yet again, that is the true conclusion.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> And we're back to the idea that every medusa is stupid.  She can't "avoid" leaving clues?  Really?  She doesn't have a hammer?  While it might be obvious to see strange statues around, seeing broken rubble in caverns generally isn't going to arouse suspicion.
> 
> I simply disagree with your presumption that every creature, particularly an intelligent one that is as intelligent as humans, would be so careless as to announce its presence everywhere it goes.




Depends. Is the medusa going to be better at hiding her presence than the PC with survival is in reading the signs that she's there (smashing up a statue into completely unrecognizable rubble is harder than it sounds)? Sounds like an opposed skill check. But I'd agree with RC that any creature is going to leave an impact on the environment around them, not every PC is going to be astute enough to read those signs though.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 24, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Shrug. Big shrug.
> 
> I've never thought of the original Medusa of myth as being particularly stupid. But everyone knew where she was. That is part of the myth itself.
> 
> I really think you are failing to grasp that concept.




I'm not sure that's so. The problem here is that people are talking in extremes. 

Hussar isn't saying that you don't have mythic creatures whose presence is known, I don't think. He may well consider that possible. He may even consider it typical. 

That doesn't mean it is universally true. 

An argument keeps getting made that seems to return to the theme that every SoD encounter has warning flags. That might be true, sometimes. But there are other times when it won't be true. Whether for mechanical reasons - the SoD monster just happens to be on a random encounter table. Or for incidental reasons - a Wizard might have a SoD memorized, and the DM didn't somehow 'prep' the party with full awareness of his spellbook. Or even for thematic reasons - maybe there is an evil villain who likes to keep his pet basilisk a surprise, or an assassin who likes the element of surprise, or any number of other possibilities. 

Insisting that there is a 'footprint' for every encounter - that the DM needs to leave signs for every possible creature on a random encounter table, that there isn't one possible thematic reason for a creature's presence to not be known before the fight - is the sort of extreme that Hussar - and myself, and probably others - are objecting to. 

I'm sure there are DMing styles where that is true. I suspect there are many more DMs for whom it is _often_ true, but certainly not universal. And there are plenty of other games where it may not be often true, whether for roleplaying or mechanical reasons or the challenge of it or otherwise. 

Regardless, I simply don't think its fair to dismiss it as people 'not getting it' when all we are really doing is objecting to the absolutism of the claim.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 24, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Shrug.  Big shrug.
> 
> I've never thought of the original Medusa of myth as being particularly stupid.  But everyone knew where she was.  That is part of the myth itself.
> 
> ...




No, I get what's being said.  

What I reject is that EVERY SoD creature MUST be signposted.  That EVERY creature MUST leave a footprint, despite the fact that many of these creatures are intelligent.

A basilisk leaves signs?  Sure, no problem.  It's an animal, and animals leave trails.  A medusa though?  A medusa is intelligent.  Wouldn't a medusa be smart enough to cover her tracks?  At least sometimes?

What you don't get is the idea that every monster has exactly one location, that is well known to every person nearby, breaks suspension of disbelief for some players.  That signposting every single creature is not believable for some players.

That you find it believable is fine.  That's groovy.  But, not everyone wants to play the way you play.  That doesn't make anyone right or wrong.  Just different playstyles.

To me, I'd rather reduce the lethality of the encounter - not remove lethality mind you, just reduce - than completely break suspension of disbelief by signposting YET AGAIN, another medusa by having statuary lying about.

If I was a totally new player?  Probably wouldn't faze me.  I'd think it was cool.  After the fifteenth medusa encounter where there are statues lying about?  Bit anti-climactic.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 24, 2010)

Oh, and by the way, since we're talking about misunderstandings - BryonD, in what version of the Perseus myth does "everyone knew where she was"?  In any reading I've done, Perseus has no idea where the Gorgons are and has to wander around trying to find them.  It isn't until he's told by the gods where the Gorgon's are, that he can find them.

So much for everyone knowing where to find the Gorgons.

Guess my way of playing is closer to mythology than you would like.


----------



## Psion (Aug 24, 2010)

Hmmm.

I may dwell on this some more, but more or less, yeah. I think every SoD creature should be signposted in some sense. Elsewise, what I see as the cheif advantage that is my reason for keeping SoD around for is lost.

Note here by saying "signposted", I'm including "rumored" and "redshirted", which leaves me plenty of room for my disbeleif suspenders.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 24, 2010)

Psion said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> I may dwell on this some more, but more or less, yeah. I think every SoD creature should be signposted in some sense. Elsewise, what I see as the cheif advantage that is my reason for keeping SoD around for is lost.
> 
> Note here by saying "signposted", I'm including "rumored" and "redshirted", which leaves me plenty of room for my disbeleif suspenders.




I disagree. There's certainly some value to "signposted" SoD creatures -- but it is the same value as signposted creatures of any sort that leave a large "footprint" on the world -- dragons, powerful undead and the like. It's fun to see how PCs decide to tackle a known (or at least assumed) presence. Do they go to the Medusa's lair, knowing it is a solid XP reward and likely full of good treasure, or do they avoid it.

But there's all value in "Oh crap" moments, when an encounter -- random or not -- is sudden and there it is, and SoD creature. Holy crap, you turned a corner and there's a cockatrice (or even ghouls for low level PCs -- theyu essentially qualify). What now? Run? Fight? Go nova and pray? Turtle up.

Here's the thing, though: I think it is reasonable to ask that the GM of such a campaign be explicit with his players. "SoD monsters do exists in this world, and you may well encounter them in adventures or even on a wandering monster chart." If the players agree to play that game, then they agree to deal with SoDs and being ""prepared" for them is a foregone conclusion.


----------



## Starman (Aug 24, 2010)

Reynard said:


> But there's all value in "Oh crap" moments, when an encounter -- random or not -- is sudden and there it is, and SoD creature. Holy crap, you turned a corner and there's a cockatrice (or even ghouls for low level PCs -- theyu essentially qualify). What now? Run? Fight? Go nova and pray? Turtle up.




Well it seems there's been enough "signposting" or "rumoring" for the characters to know that they just ran into a cockatrice. Perhaps they weren't expecting it, but they know what it is in your scenario and can act accordingly (fight, flee, panic, etc.)


----------



## Hussar (Aug 24, 2010)

I totally agree Reynard.

My question though is, if you decide to drop in a SoD creature without any PC prep, what lethality level are you comfortable with?  By the book, it could be as high as nearly 100% that a single PC will be killed in the encounter.  Is that just the way the cookie crumbles or would you want to do something to ameliorate that percentage?


----------



## Blair Goatsblood (Aug 24, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Zeus gets mad and makes the moon so ugly it turns viewers to stone.




...I am in awe with how awesome that is!


----------



## Reynard (Aug 24, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I totally agree Reynard.
> 
> My question though is, if you decide to drop in a SoD creature without any PC prep, what lethality level are you comfortable with?  By the book, it could be as high as nearly 100% that a single PC will be killed in the encounter.  Is that just the way the cookie crumbles or would you want to do something to ameliorate that percentage?




I tend to be a let the dice fall where they may type, but I also tend to "oversell" the danger. That is to say, I use lots of vivid and terrifying description to get the players to believe death is imminent when really it's not that likely. But, if their luck runs out, them's the breaks.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 24, 2010)

Starman said:
			
		

> Well it seems there's been enough "signposting" or "rumoring" for the characters to know that they just ran into a cockatrice. Perhaps they weren't expecting it, but they know what it is in your scenario and can act accordingly (fight, flee, panic, etc.)




Generally speaking I play with people who have been at it for a long time. Trying to hide the fact that it's a cockatrice or have them pretend not to know it's a cockatrice doesn't add to anyone's fun.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 24, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Huh??
> 
> I've got to do what, then? Use simulation algorithms to determine the position and vector of Slimy the Worm at every moment?
> 
> Not happening! I'll go for the probabilistic approach, concerned only with the question that really matters: whether Slimy is (or is probably soon to be) where the players can perceive it. If some "modern" gamer has a problem with that, then he can look elsewhere for his game.




Depends what you mean by Slimy the Worm.  _Tiamat _does not belong on a normal wandering monster table - although she's on some of the older school ones.  The Gorgon Medusa was a setting level monster who could be made into an artifact one of the Gods wanted so she could significantly increase her power.  The King doesn't belong on a random monster table (Elvis on the other hand might be entertaining to put on one in the right sort of game...)  They are all named setting level monsters who don't just show up at random - if I'm involving any of them, that's the motivation for the adventure.



> For plenty of the rest of us, encounter tables have worked plenty fine for a mighty long time.




And I'm going to be using ones (chosen by terrain type) in my sandbox 4e campaign.  If the PCs are very unlucky I'll roll the adult dragon.  (Hint: run or hide until they've gained about a dozen levels).  That doesn't mean I'm going to put medusas or even catoblepas on it unless they are _stupid_ enough to wander straight into catoblepas territory (hint: it makes Defiler territory look lush) - and in that case it's not a wandering monster table so much as chance catoplepas turns up table in much the same way I'd be using a chance dragon was home roll if they wanted to find its lair.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 24, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I've never thought of the original Medusa of myth as being particularly stupid.  But everyone knew where she was.  That is part of the myth itself.



Hussar's comment about the findability of the gorgons notwithstanding, you're once again conflating a single, unique mythical creature with an entire class of creatures in D&D.

Let's say your claim is true, that Medusa's location was well-known. Perhaps she would be, since she was a powerful, unique creature. But that does not translate to D&D, where medusas are a race of creatures, and moreover there are many species that have SoD abilities, which is the topic under discussion.

The point is that many players would find their versimilitude broken if every intelligent SoD creature they encountered happens to leave clues about its location. They're smart enough to cover up the evidence, but they don't. Doing this some of the time would be fine for them, but every single one?

And while you might not have made the claim yourself (I don't recall), the claim has certainly been made by some DMs who like SoD monsters that players will always have clues to their whereabouts, and so should never be taken by surprise if they're paying attention. Not just in this thread, but in threads past as well.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 24, 2010)

Skip to the *OT:* if you're interested in the strictly on-topic comments...



Ariosto said:


> If it works for you to go to the FLGS, advertise a "D&D" game on the bulletin board, and then surprise prospective players with a concoction hitherto not known by that name then shine on you crazy diamond.



Let my try to explain where I'm coming from, if you're interesting in hearing... the first long-running game I played in, circa 1984, was an AD&D campaign which used the critical hit tables from Arms Law and ditched Vancian casting in favor of a spell point system (from an issue of the Dragon? White Dwarf?). My impression was everyone was doing that sort of thing back then; customizing the D&D experience to their tastes, stealing from whatever piqued your interest (both mechanics and fluff). My experiences with other campaign bore this out. This *was* old-school gaming. 



> Wherever you get the notion that there is some privileged merit in such behavior...



You are misreading me. 



> (B) You actually don't like rebuilding so much as you like having a game that you enjoy playing. In that case, you can stop already complaining about what nobody put a gun to your head and made you play in the first place, and move along to something more aligned with your tastes.



Or C) you customize the game to your taste. Which is what everyone I knew did back in my day. There was no grail quest for the "ideal game", and no call from doctrinally pure D&D; we took the system we were most familiar with and modified it to our febrile mind's content.



> In either case, your not liking the game is a matter of personal preference, not some universal standard by which liking it is wrong. This is the point some people have a problem sorting out.



But I'm not one of those people. You're arguing with someone who isn't here. 



> *[In case the picture link gets broken, it's Ed "Big Daddy" Roth's Rat Fink.]



It's a cool picture. It reminds me of both SpongeBob and Gamma World. Which reminds me, which edition of D&D had the rules for mixing in Gamma World? I distinctly recall the D&D AC for powered armor -- was that 1e or 2e?

(this is why the idea of doctrinally pure D&D seems ill-supported by the actual text of the game)

*OT:* I'm warming to the idea of SoD... or a the 4e version of it SSSoD. I realize my biggest issue w/old-school save mechanics is, mechanically-speaking, they're reactions on the part of the character, not the player. Once a save was called for, no action can be taken. There's no room for player input, and therefore, clever play. Clever play is all the _avoidance_ of the save in the first place, and, as several people have admitted, there's a tradition of 'gotcha' play in traditional D&D.

I much prefer the idea a PC has 3 rounds before they're fatally converted to statuary, because it gives the player (and group) a chance to _do something_ about it --without requires the group have any foreknowledge of the situation. This suits my "kick-in-the-doors/driving-by-the-seat-of-your-iron-pants" style of play to a tee.


----------



## Sadrik (Aug 24, 2010)

I think that Save or Die and other effects are important. However I think that they can not be implimented as they were in 3e. You need to have that 2e/1e save chart where you get better as you level up at saving. In 3e, the math can be wrung where you can force failed saves on too high of a percentage chance (even a "good" +2 to +12 save). In 2e/1e your saves actually get better as you level up and they are not modified by the level of the caster. So, yeah save or die, but add in a better save system.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 24, 2010)

Sadrik said:


> I think that Save or Die and other effects are important. However I think that they can not be implimented as they were in 3e. You need to have that 2e/1e save chart where you get better as you level up at saving. In 3e, the math can be wrung where you can force failed saves on too high of a percentage chance (even a "good" +2 to +12 save). In 2e/1e your saves actually get better as you level up and they are not modified by the level of the caster. So, yeah save or die, but add in a better save system.




Y'know, that's a very good point.  Because the saves were based solely on level, you could change play based on that - lower levels and the SoD baddy get's signposted, higher levels and the lethality goes down and you can bomb away.

I know that because the saves were based on ability scores to some degree, you could get some extremely wonky save DC's if you started altering or advancing a SoD creature.  Bumping hit dice can change stats pretty dramatically, which can easily outstrip a more balanced saving throw number.  I know in the World's Largest Dungeon, for example, there was an advanced Cockatrice with a Fort save DC in the early 20's.  This was meant for a 5th or 6th level party.  Even those with good saves weren't saving all that often and everyone else was boned.  

To be fair though, the encounter was THOROUGHLY signposted.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 24, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> The point is that many players would find their versimilitude broken if every intelligent SoD creature they encountered happens to leave clues about its location. They're smart enough to cover up the evidence, but they don't. Doing this some of the time would be fine for them, but every single one?




I don't know about that. Verisimilitude can be broken by monsters just popping up with no warning or anything (barring summoned monsters). Evidence may be hard to find, sure, but evidence is almost always there unless the creature is absolutely *perfect* at covering its tracks.


----------



## GregChristopher (Aug 24, 2010)

I guess my answer is contextual. If the characters are just walking along and BAM SoD!, that seems to be very arbitrary to me.

But if you know that there is a really murderous monster or whatever in some particular area, and you go unprepared, then I see no problem with a SoD roll.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 24, 2010)

GregChristopher said:


> I guess my answer is contextual. If the characters are just walking along and BAM SoD!, that seems to be very arbitrary to me.
> 
> But if you know that there is a really murderous monster or whatever in some particular area, and you go unprepared, then I see no problem with a SoD roll.



I think if the adventurers are wandering around in a trackless waste beyond the edges of civilization, or mucking about in a vast dungeon far beneath the ground, that's all the context needed.


----------



## GregChristopher (Aug 24, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> I think if the adventurers are wandering around in a trackless waste beyond the edges of civilization, or mucking about in a vast dungeon far beneath the ground, that's all the context needed.




I disagree. It isnt an issue of realism (yes, these areas are dangerous) but an issue of game-fairness. People are investing a lot in these characters, they need some social contract that they wont be killed arbitrarily. If that is not present, they are either so cautious that the game is boring or they don't invest any emotion in their characters anymore; two outcomes I think are very bad.


----------



## radmod (Aug 24, 2010)

I don't think, deep inside, I want to agree with Greg here, but I do, with exceptions.
If the players are going after BBEG, then they should probably be expecting an SoD. Likewise, if they are in someplace that is totally, hugely dangerous you should encounter a SoD.
However, if you're headed back to town, or just wandering around, I don't think an SoD random is totally appropriate.
That said, I probably do it anyway and don't realize it.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 24, 2010)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I think it is reasonable to ask that the GM of such a campaign be explicit with his players. "SoD monsters do exists in this world, and you may well encounter them in adventures or even on a wandering monster chart." If the players agree to play that game, then they agree to deal with SoDs and being ""prepared" for them is a foregone conclusion.



In a WW2 game, most people with an interest in WW2 games assume the existence, for instance, or high explosives.

In a D&D game, most people with an interest are already D&Ders and know very well indeed about "SoD monsters". They usually _are_ "SoD monsters" with sleep spells!

Neither have new players, in my experience, generally been trained elsewhere to expect _any_ of the stuff  that "new school" D&D assumes. They get the same kind of lowdown on basics as when we play any other game. They don't, as a rule, consider it a big deal to try a game and find it not one's cup of tea.

The "problem" is overwhelmingly with people who make rather a point of how much they are not interested in playing the game in the first place, which really makes it a non-issue. The guys I play with who also play 4e join in because they happen to enjoy a _variety_ of games.

Anyhow, apart from disintegration, magic tends not to kill things any more dead than getting surprised and hit hard by a pack of kobolds (or whatever). Taking steps to shift the odds is what the game is. This is not radically different in principle from the play of most games involving both dice and strategy.


----------



## GregChristopher (Aug 24, 2010)

radmod said:


> I don't think, deep inside, I want to agree with Greg here, but I do, with exceptions.
> If the players are going after BBEG, then they should probably be expecting an SoD. Likewise, if they are in someplace that is totally, hugely dangerous you should encounter a SoD.
> However, if you're headed back to town, or just wandering around, I don't think an SoD random is totally appropriate.
> That said, I probably do it anyway and don't realize it.




That logic could quickly cascade into anywhere in the game world if you are not careful. Isnt the whole point of most games to be placing yourself in inherently dangerous locations? I dont think anyone is dungeon crawling in downtown Des Moines. Unless they are vampires.....


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 24, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> By the book, it could be as high as nearly 100% that a single PC will be killed in the encounter. Is that just the way the cookie crumbles or would you want to do something to ameliorate that percentage?



That chance is specific to 3e, and within 3e to particular effects.

Doing something to ameliorate that percentage is always an option for players. One _can_ use strategy and tactics! For instance, if an effect has a range of 30 feet, then a small vanguard ahead of the main body might survive and give warning. If this were 1st ed. AD&D, then in my experience an elf or halfling would typically be at least 90' in advance.

The _sleep_ spell in 1st ed. AD&D has a range of at least 40 feet, affects a 30-foot diameter, and usually permits _no save_ if it affects subjects at all. It takes out on average 10 (minimum 4) 1st-level or 5 (minimum 2) 2nd-level creatures. It is a 1st-level spell. Humanoid tribal shamans and witch doctors normally do not have access to it, but humans and elves often do, and it appears on scrolls.


----------



## GregChristopher (Aug 24, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> That chance is specific to 3e, and within 3e to particular effects.
> 
> Doing something to ameliorate that percentage is always an option for players. One _can_ use strategy and tactics! For instance, if an effect has a range of 30 feet, then a small vanguard ahead of the main body might survive and give warning. If this were 1st ed. AD&D, then in my experience an elf or halfling would typically be at least 90' in advance.
> 
> The _sleep_ spell in 1st ed. AD&D has a range of at least 40 feet, affects a 30-foot diameter, and usually permits _no save_ if it affects subjects at all. It takes out on average 10 (minimum 4) 1st-level or 5 (minimum 2) 2nd-level creatures. It is a 1st-level spell. Humanoid tribal shamans and witch doctors normally do not have access to it, but humans and elves often do, and it appears on scrolls.




And if it was 1st ed. AD&D, you can just throw away your character and reroll it up on a piece of toilet tissue. There is no attachment.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 24, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:
			
		

> _Tiamat _does not belong on a normal wandering monster table



What is a "normal" wandering monster table?


> although she's on some of the older school ones.



For example?

Your opinion as to what "doesn't belong" someplace is your opinion in any case, to which you are entitled. However, it is hard to know just what that opinion actually is without the answers to these questions of usage and fact.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 24, 2010)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Or C) you customize the game to your taste.



I have raised no objection to that practice, in which I have engaged in myriad ways since 1976.

Believe it or not, it was people "customizing D&D to their taste" who produced Rolemaster -- and Palladium, and Arduin, and many other games called by their own proper names. By however many generations, every RPG today traces its lineage back to D&D.

(Since the introduction of Character Law, it has been utterly silly to insist that people are "just playing D&D" when in fact they need no more reference to another game than D&Ders do. Rolemaster is a perfectly legitimate and distinctive game in its own right!)

So, cut out that nonsense about someone being against tinkering with D&D just because he's in favor of there being D&D to tinker with in the first place. It was there from 1974-2000, and that did not prevent heaps of different games from being played. I'm pretty sure you knew damned well how absurd your baiting was before you engaged in it.



> (this is why the idea of doctrinally pure D&D seems ill-supported by the actual text of the game)



I don't see "the idea of doctrinally pure D&D" coming from anywhere but you. That's _your_ problem, bub.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 24, 2010)

GregChristopher said:


> And if it was 1st ed. AD&D, you can just throw away your character and reroll it up on a piece of toilet tissue. There is no attachment.




That's rather more dependent upon the player than the edition of the game, I think.

Characters live in thw white spaces of the character sheet, and at the table, and in the musings on the drive home after the session. they do not live in the mechanics that tell you how strong they are or what skills they have, or not.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 24, 2010)

GregChristopher said:
			
		

> And if it was 1st ed. AD&D, you can just throw away your character and reroll it up on a piece of toilet tissue. There is no attachment.



That is obvious hyperbole, but it reflects a fundamental fact:
Different games are ... (wait for it) ... different! The parts fit together as a whole, and the design of the whole that informed design of the parts can be very basically and comprehensively different from one superficially similar game to another.

It also reflects these facts of game-design craftsmanship (and really of life in general):
(1) Different tools often are suited to different jobs, and different routes often lead to different destinations.
(2) If you are unclear on where you want to go, it's hard to plot a course.
(3) The guy you're following might be lost, too, or he might be heading someplace you _don't_ want to go.
(4) If you start changing stuff blindly, where you end up may be different both from where that other guy went and from where you think you're going.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 24, 2010)

GregChristopher said:


> It isnt an issue of realism (yes, these areas are dangerous) but an issue of game-fairness. People are investing a lot in these characters, they need some social contract that they wont be killed arbitrarily.



That way lies madness.

Seriously, the special snowflake attitude sucks the fun out of roleplaying games in my experience.

By the way, deciding that characters must face only challenges that they can reasonably expect to defeat is arbitrary. "Arbitrary" means a discretionary choice; it does not mean "randomly generated."







GregChristopher said:


> If that is not present, they are either so cautious that the game is boring or they don't invest any emotion in their characters anymore; two outcomes I think are very bad.



This is true for some players but by no means all.

In my experience, the _assumption_ that every character is a "hero" expected to last through the entire course of a game is the foundation for the surfeit of caution you describe.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> That chance is specific to 3e, and within 3e to particular effects.
> 
> Doing something to ameliorate that percentage is always an option for players. One _can_ use strategy and tactics! For instance, if an effect has a range of 30 feet, then a small vanguard ahead of the main body might survive and give warning. If this were 1st ed. AD&D, then in my experience an elf or halfling would typically be at least 90' in advance.
> 
> The _sleep_ spell in 1st ed. AD&D has a range of at least 40 feet, affects a 30-foot diameter, and usually permits _no save_ if it affects subjects at all. It takes out on average 10 (minimum 4) 1st-level or 5 (minimum 2) 2nd-level creatures. It is a 1st-level spell. Humanoid tribal shamans and witch doctors normally do not have access to it, but humans and elves often do, and it appears on scrolls.




Notice what you said there about Sleep spells - "Humanoid tribal shamans and witch doctors normally do not have access to it".  Why not?  After all, it's the single most effective spell they could possibly use in combat either with invading PC parties or against other humanoid groups.  Nothing beats Sleep.

But, monsters almost never have it because it would suck in play.  Even though it's totally realistic that they would have it, at least once in a while, they almost never do, simply because, "You enter the room, you see a bunch of orcs, roll for initiative.  Oh, they won initiative, the shaman casts sleep and you all die" is not exactly a barrel of fun.

Yet, it would be totally realistic to have all sorts of mishaps happen to the PC's.  Heck, dying of blood poisoning and infection should be a regular occurance.  But it's not.  Because it's boring.

Killing PC's is ridiculously easy.  As a DM I can kill the group any time I want.  I am the entire game world.  "The ground opens up and swallows you, you all die." 

The challenge is to make situations which are lethal enough to be exciting, without being overwhelming.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 25, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, monsters almost never have it because it would suck in play.



Monsters include elves and men, and "men are the worst monsters"!

The standard chance of an encounter on the 2nd-3rd levels being with a basilisk or medusa is nil. The chance of a cockatrice is 0.35%. The chance of 2-5 characters (and men-at-arms or henchmen to bring the party up to 9) is 8.95%. Of characters, 21% are magic-users.

That's on average 18.795 magic-users encountered per cockatrice encounter.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2010)

Fair enough Ariosto.  And how many of those magic users did DM's give Sleep?

I'm willing to bet, very, very few.

And, even if it was a lot, it's a style of play that I would never want to bring to the table again.  "Roll, roll roll, poof you all die.  No save.  Roll up new characters" is very poor play.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 25, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Fair enough Ariosto.  And how many of those magic users did DM's give Sleep?
> 
> I'm willing to bet, very, very few.
> 
> And, even if it was a lot, it's a style of play that I would never want to bring to the table again.  "Roll, roll roll, poof you all die.  No save.  Roll up new characters" is very poor play.




It seems like poor play because it is completely decontextualized -- and in RPGs, perhaps moreso than not just any other sort of game, but any other sort of entertainment, context is EVERYTHING, because, really, it's all there is outside some rules (which are themselves highly contextual).

Roll a die; you failed, you're dead. That *is* poor play. It would be especially poor play in, say, a board game. But that's not how the game works -- especially when you are talking about older editions. Context -- when does the encounter occur? how? why? under what circumstances? at how many feet? who's surprised? and on and on and on -- means everything, and context is largely in the hands of the DM -- you know, the guy who the wikingest hat viking hat DM of all (Gygax) told to not be a jerk about random encounters and to throw out random encounters that make no sense. This whole line of argument that a random encounter with a medusa is going to result in a TPK is supremely decontextualized from what happens at an actual table during actual play, so much so as to be meaningless.

In reality, SoD encounters happen, and so do TPKs. But far more important is that they have the potential to happen. That potential is a piece of the context that drives play and allows for the SoD encounter -- even the TPK -- to be a good, memorable, and fun thing.


----------



## GregChristopher (Aug 25, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> By the way, deciding that characters must face only challenges that they can reasonably expect to defeat is arbitrary. "Arbitrary" means a discretionary choice; it does not mean "randomly generated."




Methinks you need to use dictionary.com

Arbitrary simply means a decision not ground in reason. It could actually be random. It might not be though.

If you sat down at a board game, rolled dice and whoever got the highest result won, that would be arbitrary. It would also be arbitrary if one person just picked a winner without any criteria to make that judgement.

And when did I say anything about facing challenges you can reasonably expect to defeat?


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 25, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> "Roll, roll roll, poof you all die.  No save.  Roll up new characters" is very poor play.



Uh, yeah. Most players develop some skill, though -- some halfway decent play -- rather than dump 90 characters of 2nd level down the drain while getting all bent out of shape in worry over the cockatrice they never meet.

The same strategy and tactics should be as effective versus your by-the-book 3e Medusa.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 25, 2010)

GregChristopher said:


> Methinks you need to use dictionary.com



Okay.







			
				dectionary.com said:
			
		

> –*adjective*
> *1.* subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.



And that's how I used it.







GregChristopher said:


> Arbitrary simply means a decision not ground in reason. It could actually be random. It might not be though.



That's one usage, but not the only one, and not the primary one.

Per your source, of course.







GregChristopher said:


> If you sat down at a board game, rolled dice and whoever got the highest result won, that would be arbitrary. It would also be arbitrary if one person just picked a winner without any criteria to make that judgement.



I'm going to let you in on a little secret: every rule for every game ever created is arbitrary.

Hint: Go back and re-read the quoted definition.


GregChristopher said:


> And when did I say anything about facing challenges you can reasonably expect to defeat?



You didn't. I did.

Suffice it to say that I don't share your concept of what makes for a good "social contract."


----------



## GregChristopher (Aug 25, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> I'm going to let you in on a little secret: every rule for every game ever created is arbitrary.




This is ridiculous. If you truly believe this, then everything ever made is arbitrary and the word has no meaning at all.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 25, 2010)

Google

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrariness




			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> _I'm going to let you in on a little secret: every rule for every game ever created is arbitrary._




No. In fact, games in the field from which D&D arose -- wargames -- very often have rules based on reason, derived systematically from  principles mapping a "simulation" to real-world phenomena (even with quite direct statistical correlations to empirical data).


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 25, 2010)

GregChristopher said:


> This is ridiculous. If you truly believe this, then everything ever made is arbitrary and the word has no meaning at all.



Re-read the sentence with a substitution for arbitrary: "Every rule for every game ever created is subject to individual will or judgment without restriction (or) contingent solely upon one's discretion."

That includes rules designed to create a rigorous simulation, *Ariosto*. Every game designer makes discretionary decisions on what to abstact and how much to abstract it. Those decisions are arbitrary. That doesn't mean they are made without regard to reason.

Sorry, guys, I know how you want to use this word, but it doesn't mean what you think it does. It's a very common mistake.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 25, 2010)

*When you get down to pederasty -- no, wait! Pedantry! When you get down to pedantry and snide swipes about dictionary definitions, it's almost time to close the thread. What do you say we get it back on track instead?***

Thanks.*

* Not actually a request, and not actually optional.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Aug 25, 2010)

> Sorry, guys, I know how you want to use this word, but it doesn't mean what you think it does. It's a very common mistake.




My _OED_ disagrees, and so do I:

adj
1. based on random choice or personal whim
2. (of power or a ruling body) autocratic
3. [Mathematics] (of a constant or other quality) of unspecified value

I think you know the context it was used in.

Sep, we cross posted, but I'd like the dictionary definition nonsense to end here, please. ~ PCat


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2010)

Reynard - I totally agree that context is important.  

But, within the realm of possibility, we have the "You are surprised by a banshee, everyone roll a saving throw".  Granted, we also have the signposted encounter as well.

My issue is kinda with both.  I dislike the signposted encounter because I feel it becomes cliche.  Every medusa leaves obvious clues of its presence despite being intelligent enough, and possessing opposable thumbs, which makes the use of a hammer and a wheelbarrow entirely possible.  Bleah.  I want to be able to use these creatures without having to manipulate the game world every time so that the players have a chance to know what's coming.

On the other hand, if I don't signpost the encounter, there are a number of creatures out there for whom a surprise encounter is very, very lethal.  Too lethal for my taste anyway.  The bodak, the banshee, the Sleep spell from earlier editions, etc.  I dislike these effects which make encounter design very difficult.

Me, as I've stated before, I just prefer a more mechanical solution.  Lower the lethality of the effect and it solves all my problems.  I can still signpost if I want to, but, if I don't, then there's no problem for me either.

Obviously some people don't like the third option, but, that's fine.  Different strokes and all that.


----------



## slwoyach (Aug 25, 2010)

Funny how players don't seem to mind save or die but DMs do.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 25, 2010)

Mallus said:


> ditched Vancian casting in favor of a spell point system (from an issue of the Dragon? White Dwarf?).



I'm guessing it was the one that's in Best of White Dwarf vol 2.



Mallus said:


> which edition of D&D had the rules for mixing in Gamma World? I distinctly recall the D&D AC for powered armor -- was that 1e or 2e?



AD&D 1st ed DMG.


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 25, 2010)

slwoyach said:


> Funny how players don't seem to mind save or die but DMs do.




Players are "Well what the heck I get an opportunity to roll up a new character, that's fun".

DM's are "Great they are stuck in the middle of the Elemental Chaos, how the heck am I going to work in a new character now? All the effort I put into those NPC relationships, wasted."

Or both are.... "Well that's what Raise Dead is for it's not like death is much of a threat."


----------



## BryonD (Aug 25, 2010)

Bagpuss said:


> Players are "Well what the heck I get an opportunity to roll up a new character, that's fun".



Really?  If have not read every post in this thread, but I haven't seen anyone promote this position.  I think it because players are the one's who benefit most from getting to be in the role of overcoming the threat, and they most lose out on that chance when it is taken away.



> DM's are "Great they are stuck in the middle of the Elemental Chaos, how the heck am I going to work in a new character now? All the effort I put into those NPC relationships, wasted."



This may be true.  If so, it is a shame that DMs put this petty stuff over letting the story just be.



> Or both are.... "Well that's what Raise Dead is for it's not like death is much of a threat."



Again, not really seeing that.  I'm certain there are games out there like it, but they are far from the majority I have experienced and not really represented in the debate here.

And, most certainly, a "whatever, no big deal" reason doesn't make sense for why someone would be "pro" something.  I don't accept it because it is not "much of a threat".  It is a very real threat.  And it is great.




Also, there are a lot more DM votes, but a 4 - 3 anti-SOD DM position, isn't the same as a 2-1 pro-SOD player position.


----------



## slwoyach (Aug 25, 2010)

47-37 is a pretty large margin.  If an election produces numbers like that it's considered a landslide.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 25, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Also, there are a lot more DM votes, but a 4 - 3 anti-SOD DM position, isn't the same as a 2-1 pro-SOD player position.



And a sample size of 340 is much different than one of 58. But really, if you put too much stock in the specific results of a poll like this, you're just asking for trouble.


----------



## Malachei (Aug 25, 2010)

I think the question is really too ambiguous to allow any conclusions from the statistics of the poll.

Personally, I like save-or-dies within restrictions. I really think there is a lot of tension and suspense when a character faces a deadly threat. Even more so, as we play with a low mortality rate but resurrection being mostly unavailable, as well. So character death will most likely be final for most, and even in higher level play, I've seen players who dislike continuing a dead character even with resurrection available -- I agree and have always felt overuse of raise dead feels like a computer game's saved game. It is taking the risk, the edge off. But this style of gaming also implies certain restrictions: statistically, characters _are_ going to fail saves at one point or another, so if you bomb them with SODs, you will eventually lose them -- besides, it gets boring. In the campaigns we play, we're restricting SODs to a certain amount of usage, and as a DM I also know I can count on the players spending a lot of effort on optimizing their characters' defenses -- and don't need to pull any punches. Thus, a real SOD (a killer), is part of a story climax.

Also, I think many DMs think the enemies should have the same weaponry as the player characters. Whereas in real game play, they normally don't (imbalance of resources in many cases), one can still argue that the ability to take out a foe in one action should be available to both sides. Whatever the outcome, as a player, I would not want to miss SODs for my character to use on the enemy.


----------



## karlindel (Aug 25, 2010)

This should be multiple choice, as there are many DMs who are also players.  I voted on the DM side against Save or Die.  

I like the 4e version in which a character has multiple saving throws with increasingly bad effects before they die/turn to stone/etc..  This can add to the tension of the encounter as the party tries to find ways to make sure the character doesn't die, as well as decisions by the party about whether to spend actions battling opponents or trying to reduce the risk to the party member.

I do not like it when save or dies are tossed around like candy, as it reduces the fun at the table.  Combats that should be fun ending with the main enemy failing his first saving throw are not fun.  Combats ending when the party all roll badly and fail their saving throw against a Bodak or the like are also not at all fun.  It is even worse if the party had no warning about what they would be facing, in which case there is no decision-making involved, just death by random bad luck.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Aug 25, 2010)

I voted yea, as SoD is just another option for a DM to include in his arsenal. Like ability damage or level drain, it needs to be used with discretion; DMs who don't like it can simply avoid using monsters with it. The prevailing game philosophy is to regard these particular afflictions as overly punitive to the _player_ in terms of his or her enjoyment of the game, but this was not always so. 

Foreshadowing (weird stone remains), or handy elixirs of _stone to flesh_ (like the medusa in B2) can help. And how many times do you plan on using a bodak over the course of a campaign anyway? Monsters like this seem like they should be set pieces to me, rather than 'wandering.'

I think the real problem is that "out of combat" for an encounter or two in 3e or 4e can mean "out of the session" if the combats run to a couple of hours. This was not the case in earlier editions. Parties are smaller now, too: you can't just pick up an NPC and move along.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 25, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Really?  If have not read every post in this thread, but I haven't seen anyone promote this position.  I think it because players are the one's who benefit most from getting to be in the role of overcoming the threat, and they most lose out on that chance when it is taken away.




I ran a separate poll, which indicated that people have bigger problems with PC death as a DM than they do as a player, by a ratio of almost two to one. That matches up pretty well with my own anecdotal experience--when a PC dies, the player quickly moves on to making a new character, while the DM wrestles with maintaining campaign continuity (not to mention second-guessing herself about whether the encounter was unreasonably lethal). So I'm inclined to agree with Bagpuss's analysis. It's about character death in general, not save-or-die as such.



BryonD said:


> This may be true.  If so, it is a shame that DMs put this petty stuff over letting the story just be.




Do us a favor and don't snipe at the way other DMs run our games, 'kay? Some of us take a fairly active role in managing the plot and our players like it that way. You and your players may prefer a more _laissez-faire_, sandboxy style, and that's cool too. It's one thing to argue for or against particular mechanics or outcomes, but calling our concerns "petty" is a bit much.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 25, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Do us a favor and don't snipe at the way other DMs run our games, 'kay? Some of us take a fairly active role in managing the plot and our players like it that way. You and your players may prefer a more _laissez-faire_, sandboxy style, and that's cool too.




Taking a fairly active role in managing the plot isn't really incompatible with letting PCs die, nor is letting them die when their actions (and resolved results) say they should die only part of a laissez-faire, sandboxy style.

I think that a GM who's plot work *requires* that a PC (or specific PCs) survive is well advised to rework his plot. There are too many things that can interfere from a player becoming unavailable to the game to a PC doing something for which they *should* die without hard-to-rationalize GM intervention for the game to be as robust as it could be.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 25, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I think that a GM who's plot work *requires* that a PC (or specific PCs) survive is well advised to rework his plot. There are too many things that can interfere from a player becoming unavailable to the game to a PC doing something for which they *should* die without hard-to-rationalize GM intervention for the game to be as robust as it could be.



That may be good advice in general, but if the DM and players enjoy playing that way, then that's the way they should play. They might not be interested in making the game "as robust as it could be", and that should not result in their desires being called petty, which was what Dausuul was responding to. Why should they care about the game being robust, if they enjoy playing a game that you would not call robust?


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 25, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> I ran a separate poll, which indicated that people have bigger problems with PC death as a DM than they do as a player, by a ratio of almost two to one. That matches up pretty well with my own anecdotal experience--when a PC dies, the player quickly moves on to making a new character, while the DM wrestles with maintaining campaign continuity (not to mention second-guessing herself about whether the encounter was unreasonably lethal). So I'm inclined to agree with Bagpuss's analysis. It's about character death in general, not save-or-die as such.




Or, again, Enworld might just have a larger number of DMs than players.  Even if some of those DMs are also players, anyone who is primarily a DM is more likely to have experience character death from the DM side of the screen, and thus most likely to relate to it on that level.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 25, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Taking a fairly active role in managing the plot isn't really incompatible with letting PCs die, nor is letting them die when their actions (and resolved results) say they should die only part of a laissez-faire, sandboxy style.
> 
> I think that a GM who's plot work *requires* that a PC (or specific PCs) survive is well advised to rework his plot. There are too many things that can interfere from a player becoming unavailable to the game to a PC doing something for which they *should* die without hard-to-rationalize GM intervention for the game to be as robust as it could be.




Fifth Element summed up my point pretty well.

I will add that my plots do not _require_ any specific PC (I tried that a couple times in the past and learned not to do it again), but it's still a pain in the neck when they die. Individual PCs interact with NPCs and build up relationships; those relationships are very helpful in developing the plot and giving the players a bigger stake in the outcome. Moreover, the logistics of getting a new PC into the action and committed to the party's present goal can be quite a nuisance.

I agree with the sentiment that a credible threat of PC death is important, and for a threat to be credible, you have to deliver once in a while. I just don't like having the game mechanics suddenly execute a PC without warning. Given the headaches that PC deaths cause me, I want to get as much benefit as possible from each one; a death that does not promote player engagement and increase tension is a death wasted, and I find that deaths are most effective at engaging players when the players feel they could/should have done something to avoid it.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 25, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> I ran a separate poll, which indicated that people have bigger problems with PC death as a DM than they do as a player, by a ratio of almost two to one. That matches up pretty well with my own anecdotal experience--when a PC dies, the player quickly moves on to making a new character, while the DM wrestles with maintaining campaign continuity (not to mention second-guessing herself about whether the encounter was unreasonably lethal). So I'm inclined to agree with Bagpuss's analysis. It's about character death in general, not save-or-die as such.



I don't agree that this evidence supports that conclusion.



> Do us a favor and don't snipe at the way other DMs run our games, 'kay?



Ok, so an opinion can be stated, but disagreeing with it is verboten.  Gotcha.



> Some of us take a fairly active role in managing the plot and our players like it that way.



Ah, but we have already agreed that players take the other position.



> You and your players may prefer a more _laissez-faire_, sandboxy style, and that's cool too. It's one thing to argue for or against particular mechanics or outcomes, but calling our concerns "petty" is a bit much.



I think that the concerns as phrased in the post replied to are petty.

For the record, I take a very active role on managing the plot.  But the course of events taking that planning and screwing with it is part of both the process and the fun.

When a wave comes along and knocks down my sand castle, I don't take the petty position of wringing my hands over at, but, quite the contrary, I embrace the unexpected and start building anew, with the latest twist now built in.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 25, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> That may be good advice in general, but if the DM and players enjoy playing that way, then that's the way they should play. They might not be interested in making the game "as robust as it could be", and that should not result in their desires being called petty, which was what Dausuul was responding to. Why should they care about the game being robust, if they enjoy playing a game that you would not call robust?




Nit pick. That's a way they *can* play. If it's the way they enjoy playing *the most*, then I might agree that they should play that way. But just because something is enjoyable, that doesn't mean it can't be made better. Let's not disallow criticism directed at improving the game just because the experience isn't currently a bad one.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 25, 2010)

billd91 said:


> If it's the way they enjoy playing *the most*, then I might agree that they should play that way.



Might?



billd91 said:


> But just because something is enjoyable, that doesn't mean it can't be made better. Let's not disallow criticism directed at improving the game just because the experience isn't currently a bad one.



"Made better" is a rather difficult thing to pin down when dealing with such an ambiguous and varied concept as "having fun."

Yes, I could have been more specific in my post by saying "the most", but that's what I meant, and my point still stands.

"Better", here, is completely subjective. Indeed, when someone says "I like to have fun this way" and your response is "You should do it _this_ way, it's better", that's a rather presumptuous response.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 25, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> "Better", here, is completely subjective. Indeed, when someone says "I like to have fun this way" and your response is "You should do it _this_ way, it's better", that's a rather presumptuous response.




It's *advice*. Anybody is free to take it or leave it at their own will. But if someone's posting in a public forum, they should expect to get it and get it unsolicited. If they don't want it, they shouldn't post in a public forum.

While saying that something is outright badwrongfun is improper, making recommendations and giving advice based on your own experience is not. The anti-badwrongfun element on these boards has been edging into forgetting that for a while now.


----------



## Jacob Marley (Aug 25, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Really?  If have not read every post in this thread, but I haven't seen anyone promote this position.




Actually, I made that observation back on page 23, post 335.



Jacob Marley said:


> Over the years I have noticed with a number of the people I game with that they already have the next character concept/class/prestige class/race/whatever ready to play when their current character dies. There is a strong desire to try out the next cool thing.




I am not sure that it holds true across all editions of D&D (Or, all game systems in general for that matter). But, it certainly held true regarding my experiences with 3rd Edition and it is proving true with regards to Pathfinder.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 25, 2010)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> That may be good advice in general, but if the DM and players enjoy playing that way, then that's the way they should play.



For heaven's sake, use some common sense.

If it's not a problem that your plot gets messed up, then you can just ignore advice about how to avoid getting one's plot messed up.

It makes no difference to me, because I don't impose a plot in the first place.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 26, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> I agree with the sentiment that a credible threat of PC death is important, and for a threat to be credible, you have to deliver once in a while.



I'm not sure this is true. I suspect that all you need is that the players are aware that, _had they not played well_, their PCs would have died. In my experience, games which offer a lot of tactical choices, where those choices matter to the outcome of PC actions, can produce this awareness in players. Even if no PC ever actually dies.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 26, 2010)

Hussar said:


> And we're back to the idea that every medusa is stupid.  She can't "avoid" leaving clues?  Really?




Can humans?  Really?

All creatures have a footprint in the real world.  Every creature requires some form of living space that matches its needs, consumes something, and creates waste products.  One might imagine a medusa which has access to an endless supply of hammers, so as to break each statue into rubble as it is made; one might assume that said medusa has the patience to do so, and somehow never gets sloppy with the results; one might assume that the stone the statues are made of matches that of the surrounding area.  

In that event, if the group has no character that can tell ruined stonework from naturally occurring stone, if they don't notice the worn out hammers secreted somewhere, and if they don't hear the constant tapping and smashing of stone from the medusa's unending labours, they may well have no way of guessing what is ahead.

But, I would guess, medusas are no more competent than humans in covering their tracks.  They are likely to be as lazy as anyone else, and as likely to do "good enough" rather than "perfect".



> I simply disagree with your presumption that every creature, particularly an intelligent one that is as intelligent as humans, would be so careless as to announce its presence everywhere it goes.




Just came back from the beautiful Elora Gorge in Ontario.  Can you guess how many bottles and cans I found along the hiking trails?  Bits of old tents, a few extra pegs, pieces of broken plastic, candy wrappers and granola wrappers, etc.?  Bark stripped from trees, initials carved on trees and marked on rocks, etc.?

If humans are the bar, it is a low bar indeed!



Hussar said:


> What I reject is that EVERY SoD creature MUST be signposted.  That EVERY creature MUST leave a footprint, despite the fact that many of these creatures are intelligent.




Counter-example me, then.  Offer an example of any real creature that doesn't leave a footprint.



billd91 said:


> I don't know about that. Verisimilitude can be broken by monsters just popping up with no warning or anything (barring summoned monsters). Evidence may be hard to find, sure, but evidence is almost always there unless the creature is absolutely *perfect* at covering its tracks.




Agreed.



The Shaman said:


> Seriously, the special snowflake attitude sucks the fun out of roleplaying games in my experience.




Also agreed.



Hussar said:


> Fair enough Ariosto.  And how many of those magic users did DM's give Sleep?
> 
> I'm willing to bet, very, very few.




I rolled spells randomly in 1e, the same for NPCs as for PCs.  If NPCs never had _sleep_, how could the PCs obtain it?



RC


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 27, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Counter-example me, then.  Offer an example of any real creature that doesn't leave a footprint.




I don't think that's the real issue. A footprint is not enough.

In old D&D, we players have a chance to look for spoor. We have a chance to do research and reconnaissance even before venturing into Medusa-Land -- or deciding to give it a wide berth.

I think that's probably beyond the scope of Hussar's game.

(Apparently, so are all tactics other than PCs clustering conveniently into the typical fatality diameter of an M67 grenade and then _throwing themselves en masse_ on top of the 3e equivalent!)

At any rate, the old game does not offer the 100% guarantee of precise foreknowledge he requires.

In AD&D, even if an encounter is rolled, it may be no more than a sighting -- or even a _hearing_ -- from a distance. Except in a surprise situation, the normal range of a dungeon encounter in AD&D is 50' to 100'. Outdoors, even a surprise roll of 4 (2 being the usual maximum) gives an average of 330' (down to 150' in forest).


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 27, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> (Apparently, so are all tactics other than PCs clustering conveniently into the typical fatality diameter of an M67 grenade and then _throwing themselves en masse_ on top of the 3e equivalent!)
> 
> At any rate, the old game does not offer the 100% guarantee of precise foreknowledge he requires.



Of course you know that this is a gross misrepresentation of the argument.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 27, 2010)

billd91 said:


> While saying that something is outright badwrongfun is improper, making recommendations and giving advice based on your own experience is not. The anti-badwrongfun element on these boards has been edging into forgetting that for a while now.



Hold up there, pardner. Recall that this line of the discussion came up when BryonD referred to Dausuul's playstyle with the line  "If so, it is a shame that DMs put this petty stuff over letting the  story just be." That's pretty clear badwrongfunning.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 27, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure this is true. I suspect that all you need is that the players are aware that, _had they not played well_, their PCs would have died. In my experience, games which offer a lot of tactical choices, where those choices matter to the outcome of PC actions, can produce this awareness in players. Even if no PC ever actually dies.




But sooner or later, the gang always has an off day and the players do not, in fact, play well. At that point, either a PC dies or the group learns that no, they _don't_ die when they play badly.

I'm not saying the DM has to deliberately set PCs up for death. In fact, I would strongly advocate against that. But when the party does something that _should_ result in a PC dying--and they always do, sooner or later--one has to be ready to follow through.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 27, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Hold up there, pardner. Recall that this line of the discussion came up when BryonD referred to Dausuul's playstyle with the line  "If so, it is a shame that DMs put this petty stuff over letting the  story just be." That's pretty clear badwrongfunning.




I disagree. I saw the comment as being critical of the DM for getting upset because *his* work was in danger of being wasted because of the way the events were unfolding or being unable to adjust to significant changes. As a DM, I know that not everything I plan is going to pan out the way I originally envision it. Pesky dice and willful players are always trying to exert some control.
The style of play isn't under criticism, as I see it, but the DM's attitude is.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 27, 2010)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Of course you know that this is a gross misrepresentation of the argument.



No, actually.



Hussar said:


> Unless the players actually are forewarned about the the location of the SoD creature, within a fair degree of accuracy, the forewarning is mostly useless. There's no way to be 100% prepared 100% of the time.



and


Hussar said:


> To me, that's the rub. Even if I absolutely know that there is a basilisk in that there dungeon, how do I prepare for it in every single instance?






Basilisk" said:


> The issue here is that a completely arbitrary die roll that the players have no way of realistically avoiding can kill the PC....
> 
> Unless the DM puts up big "SAVE OR DIE AHEAD" signs and wraps every encounter in bubble wrap (which defeats the purpose in the first place), or I meta-game every single encounter, there's no way to be prepared.






BryonD said:


> The idea that party's chance to make a difference doesn't kick in until after the save die is rolled is a huge point of disconnect in the perpectives.






Hussar said:


> Party of 5 PC's meets a creature like a medusa or a bodak that forces save or die on the group. Fight lasts four rounds. That's twenty saving throws.






Reynard said:


> Hussar: Why do you want to be 100% prepared or, as you put it upthread, "safe"?




(I have not found a post in which Hussar put it, literally, as "safe". I may simply have missed it, though.)



Hussar said:


> Because, mathematically speaking, save or die is very rarely just save or die, it's usually just die. An unprepared party of five PC's meets a medusa has to make five saving throws, possibly ten saving throws if there is a surprise round, before their first action. The chances that someone will fail that saving throw is too great IMO.
> 
> If the chance of failing the save is even 25%, odds say that someone is going to die in the first round if they are caught unprepared.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2010)

I find the idea of telegraphing encounters to be very cliche and trite.  The first time we found a room full of very realistic statues in poses of horror, it was fun.  The third time it was a bit tired.  The three hundredth time it's lost quite a lot of its gloss.

Yet, I'm told, that the way to use a medusa is to make sure that her presence is detectable by a party.  Apparently the medusa, despite being pretty smart, will always leave her used tools out where wandering people can find them and will only be encountered shortly after turning someone else to stone, thus giving the party a chance to hear her breaking apart the statue.

Am I the only one who finds this utterly contrived and very, very cliche?

Never minding the medusa who might have a maedar consort who can turn stone bits back to meat and EAT the evidence.  Naw, can't do that, because we apparently need giant neon signs advertising the presence of particular monsters.  RC's evidence is the presence of litter in a public park.  Try going to places where you get beaten with a cane for littering and see how much litter you find in parks.  (hint, Singapore parks are EXTREMELY clean)  If I'm going to give up my presence to everyone around me who is then going to send their biggest, and strongest to come and kill me, you'd think that the average medusa might, oh, I dunno, DIG A HOLE.  Put the evidence of her activities DEEPER into her lair so that people don't stumble onto it.

But no.  Apparently not.

Hey, if you're happy with recycling thousand year old cliche's in your game and your players are groovy with it?  Go for it.  Be my guest.  To me, it's a giant yawn fest to yet again see another room full of statuary.  Not to my taste.  I prefer my cliche's just a little less obvious.

Obviously, YMMV and all that.

But, since this is now turning personal, with people telling me that I'm apparently a hack at the table, despite having no actual experience with how my games run, I guess it's time to bow out.  I've said my piece.  I see save or die as a legacy piece of mechanics that was a bad idea even back in the day and have taken steps to make it better at my table.  Follow my advice or not, it's no skin off my nose.  When people start taking things personally instead of trying to actually discuss, it's no longer worth my time.

Ariosto, you feel free to have the last word.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 27, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> But sooner or later, the gang always has an off day and the players do not, in fact, play well.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> when the party does something that _should_ result in a PC dying--and they always do, sooner or later--one has to be ready to follow through.



I see your point.

An interesting feature of Rolemaster, which runs contrary to its reputation for deadliness, is that many critical results leave a character incapacitated (and often dying) rather than dead. Furthermore, even after a character dies physically there is still several rounds (for anyone but an elf) before soul departure. So the off days may produce situations in which PCs need serious healing magic to recover, with the potential (given RM's healing rules) for very long ingame recovery periods. But at mid to high levels, when characters have the resources to exploit the gaps between dying, bodily death and soul departure, deaths may actually become very infrequent.

The functional analogue of this in D&D is probably Raise Dead - bad days produce resource expenditure and recovery times, but do not necessarily take a PC permanently out of the game. Anyway, even if the upshot is more like this and less like actual, permanent PC death, I agree that the GM needs to be prepared to follow through if a credible fear of death is to be created.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 27, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Ariosto, you feel free to have the last word.




I will recommend again dropping that paragraph out of the 3.5 gaze rules and thus bringing the gaze back closer to the original D&D model.

That should put an absolute cap (typically 1 per round, I think) on how many player-characters it can petrify or whatever.

Otherwise, you leave open the fluke that is only _more_ a matter of "pure random chance" for happening only (let us say) once in a thousand player-years. (If there are 300,000 players around the world, that's almost a daily event!)

With an absolute cap in place, you can tinker with "save or Z" or "save or X, then save or Y, then save or Z" -- or whatever else looks good. (Setting DCs is in your bag of tricks, too.)

I will also note again that adopting tactics that are actually effective is good for monsters and players alike. Ambush, and you might get the basilisk. Mind those intervals, and the basilisk might not get you (and at least won't get you _all_).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 30, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I find the idea of telegraphing encounters to be very cliche and trite.




I can see where having a consistent and self-referential world (another way of describing "telegraphing encounters") might seem very cliche to you.  After all, you live in such a world, and have had daily experience of one for however many years you have been alive.

That's certainly more than a "thousand year old cliche".....It has undoubtably been true for as long as there has been life to experience anything, anywhere.

Forests predate the legends of the medusa.  So does agriculture.  I certainly hope your campaign milieu avoids those trite cliches.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 30, 2010)

A couple more things.



Hussar said:


> Yet, I'm told, that the way to use a medusa is to make sure that her presence is detectable by a party.




Careful there.  Just about anything's presence is "detectable by a party" in a world in which divination magic exists. 



> Apparently the medusa, despite being pretty smart, will always leave her used tools out where wandering people can find them and will only be encountered shortly after turning someone else to stone, thus giving the party a chance to hear her breaking apart the statue.




I think that (1) you underestimate the laziness of creatures in general, and (2) you underestimate how long it takes, as well as how much effort is required, to reduce a stone statue to unidentifiable rubble.  The very industrious medusa in our example doesn't have to have recently petrified anyone -- she is still working on the statues from months ago.



> Never minding the medusa who might have a maedar consort who can turn stone bits back to meat and EAT the evidence.  Naw, can't do that, because we apparently need giant neon signs advertising the presence of particular monsters.




Who said anything about giant neon signs except you?  That is an obvious straw man.

The medusa who has a maedar consort obviously has the edge up on our industrious medusa.  Yet, even so, the maedar is unlikely to eat everything that ever happens to get within close proximity of the medusa.  Does the maeder eat vermin, for example?  Rats?

Does he eat the bones, the pelt?



> RC's evidence is the presence of litter in a public park.  Try going to places where you get beaten with a cane for littering and see how much litter you find in parks.  (hint, Singapore parks are EXTREMELY clean)  If I'm going to give up my presence to everyone around me who is then going to send their biggest, and strongest to come and kill me, you'd think that the average medusa might, oh, I dunno, DIG A HOLE.  Put the evidence of her activities DEEPER into her lair so that people don't stumble onto it.




Well, the medusa with a maedar consort may indeed use such a middens....Not "DEEPER into her lair" but some reasonable distance from it, so that the stench of rotting remains doesn't bother her.  Our industrious medusa, however, is either going to be dragging heavy stone statues, or at the very least breaking them down into smaller chunks on-site.  This is going to require more than one hammer, even over a relatively small span of years, because handles will break (if nothing else).

The middens is also not likely to be a hole dug by the medusa.  Digging holes, especially in stone, is hard work after all.

It is also rather curious that, one one hand, we cannot use the medusa because it is party insta-death, and on the other hand the medusa is cringing in hiding from that very same party, "their biggest, and strongest to come and kill me".  Not wrongbadfun, but very inconsistent.

Can a medusa with a maedar consort subsist simply by converting stone tunnels to flesh, then eating the flesh, bothering nothing?  That might be an interesting encounter for the PCs.  The medusa would have no reason to use her gaze attack on anyone.  Perhaps they could even grill a stone steak and break out the ale.  If the PCs agreed to continue to supply ale, the medusa might even make them favoured guests.

Most medusas, though, seem to be played as though they enjoy the suffering of others.  They turn people to stone from spite or malice.  They enjoy it.  Such a creature is simply not going to hide in a hole eating cave tunnel steaks.  It needs the means to lure victims to its grasp.

Or, in the case of the classical Medusa, she is hidden away from the world, and wrathful toward those who seek her out.

It would be interesting to play in a dungeon like Singapore's parks, where monsters get beaten with a cane for littering.  I imagine that the PCs would get beaten fairly early in their explorations (assuming leaving dead bodies around is considered littering), and they might have the chance to ask the guards about what repeat offenders are in the area!  



> But, since this is now turning personal, with people telling me that I'm apparently a hack at the table, despite having no actual experience with how my games run, I guess it's time to bow out.




Hussar, we all post here, and as we do so, people are able to get an idea of what we are like as players and DMs.  We have a "footprint" here just as monsters do in the campaign milieu.  You have made statements in the past about how you think others run games, based on your experience and their statements.  That's human nature.

Maybe I missed the post where someone said you were a hack at the table, but I don't think it exists.  I don't see anyone else taking things personally instead of trying to actually discuss.

That doesn't mean that we aren't going to or shouldn't examine your arguments, though.  Nor should it mean that you won't or shouldn't examine ours.


RC


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 30, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I can see where having a consistent and self-referential world (another way of describing "telegraphing encounters") might seem very cliche to you. After all, you live in such a world, and have had daily experience of one for however many years you have been alive.




Again, RC, the issue at hand isn't the idea of having signs of a monster's presence available. It is that your argument seems to take that to the extreme expectation that there are never situations where PCs don't come across those signs or find themselves without the knowledge to interpret them correctly. 

Such as the comment about Maenar leaving vermin bones behind. Plenty of things eat vermin - does the expectation of the PCs identifying the Maenar rely upon them having a ranger with an incredible Nature skill? 

Similarly, is it that unreasonable to assume that some encounters may happen without tons of advance warning? 

You keep presenting this as an either/or situation: Either all encounters contain a reasonable footprint that the PCs will have the opportunity to discover and knowledge to decipher, or a game lacks any internal inconsistency. 

I don't think it breaks down that easily. I think many outdoor encounters will have warning signs, whether physical tracks or rumors heard in town. I think others could come upon the PCs before they have the opportunity to obtain such knowledge. There are also plenty of reasons why there might be false or misleading rumors, there could be tracks that aren't always easily decipherable, there could be combat elements that there are no real way to predict. (Such as the exact list of what spells an enemy Wizard might possess.) 

Sure, there _could_ be reasons and explanations for most such things - a DM could certainly leave as many clues in advance as they desire. But there could also be reasons _not_ to have such things, and I don't think a game lacks consistency if some encounters come without complete warning of what the PCs will face. 

We're not saying, "No creature should have a footprint." We're saying that it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that every creature's has one that the PCs stumble upon in advance, and that while the DM can contrive to arrange that as the case, the game - or even the desire for a realistic setting - doesn't require that to be the case.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 30, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Such as the comment about Maenar leaving vermin bones behind. Plenty of things eat vermin - does the expectation of the PCs identifying the Maenar rely upon them having a ranger with an incredible Nature skill?




Ecologically speaking, vermin exist largely to be food for other things - pretty much any land-predators wolf-sized and smaller are apt to partake of rats, squirrels, rabbits, or what have you, so this would hardly be a marker for a particular beastie unless there was something very specific about how it ate vermin.



> We're not saying, "No creature should have a footprint." We're saying that it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that every creature's has one that the PCs stumble upon in advance, and that while the DM can contrive to arrange that as the case, the game - or even the desire for a realistic setting - doesn't require that to be the case.




And we should note that most of the time the DM and players are not forensic specialists.  What the GM thinks is a telltale footprint may not seem so to the players, unless the GM is explicit about it.  The three-clue rule would seem to have to apply.


----------



## awesomeocalypse (Aug 30, 2010)

I'm about as "new school" as it gets in what I look for in most of my games--that is, involved character creation, balanced combats which ultimately favor the players, no "fantasy vietnam syndrome", plots and encounters tailored to my character, etc. Simply put, I don't want to play some guy who lives in a fantasy world. Nor do I want to play "a hero". I want to play THE hero, the guy who, were the game a novel, would be considered the main character (or one of them, at least). If the world doesn't revolve around my character, I don't generally have a huge interest in the game. 

Main characters die, sometimes. But almost never randomly or in a way that feels insignificant to the plot.

As such, I normally really, really dislike SoD, because its a mechanic that lends itself to random and/or insignificant death. I fact, I dislike it *so* much, that I usually won't play in games that include SoD.

However...

I have played in a few games that made use of save or die mechanics in a way that didn't feel random or arbitrary.

One involved a wizard who used a spell that was basically power word: kill (except this is 4e). However, the spell had a "casting time" of 2 rounds, during which he was unable to take other actions, and dropped to the bottom of the initiative order. If the PCs hit him while he was casting, the spell would be disrupted, and he'd have to restart the process. Of course, he had some minions and a few brutes defending him and getting in the PC's faces.

It created a really interesting tactical dynamic. The wizard was doing zero damage round to round, and the brutes were in our faces wailing on us, so ignoring the brutes really hurt. But if we didn't make sure to land at least one hit on the wizard every round or so, he'd get off a save or die, and we could be killed instantly if we rolled badly.

Ultimately, one party member did die. But it didn't feel "random" or "insignificant". It felt like a completely fair result of the battle, one that, had we been smarter with our tactics, we could have avoided. Moreover, because that spell took a couple rounds to get off, it felt bigger and more dramatic than an ordinary attack, almost like a plot device. Somehow, while a hero croaking because a Medusa glanced his way never felt sufficiently "heroic" to me, a hero dying because of a dark ritual painstakingly cast by an evil mastermind did feel more satisfying on a narrative level.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 30, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Again, RC, the issue at hand isn't the idea of having signs of a monster's presence available.




I think that depends very much on who is "speaking".  It may not be _*your*_ issue at hand, but some of the posts on this thread make it seem to be.

Nor is it my argument that "there are never situations where PCs don't come across those signs or find themselves without the knowledge to interpret them correctly" -- that is Hussar's interpretation of my argument.

I merely require that it be possible.  Whether or not the PCs actually come across those signs, and whether or not the players interpret them correctly, is besides the point.  I only require a "footprint" that is "consistent and self-referential".



> Such as the comment about Maenar leaving vermin bones behind. Plenty of things eat vermin - does the expectation of the PCs identifying the Maenar rely upon them having a ranger with an incredible Nature skill?




You misunderstand -- is the maedar of the "all flesh must be eaten" variety, or are there some things not worth turning back to flesh to eat?  If the medusa encounters a giant spider, does the consort turn it to flesh to be eaten?  Or are there some things that are simply left stone?

If we are to assume that the medusa is smart, she would surely know that a stone spider attracts fewer wandering monsters than a rotting flesh spider.  And, assuming that one is using the wandering monster tables provided, she would know that some wandering encounters may well cause her harm.

IOW, PCs wander down to Level 7 perhaps once in her lifetime (  ) but she has to worry about wandering monsters down there 24/7.  What makes more sense?  Leaving rotting piles of uneaten flesh around, or allowing some statues to remain statues?



> Similarly, is it that unreasonable to assume that some encounters may happen without tons of advance warning?




Again, you seem to be reading too much of Hussar's "What you are saying is...." and not enough of what is actually being said. 

My argument is, basically:

If a game world is to have internal consistency, all creatures that can be encountered should have a "footprint" which is consistent with their effects on the environment.  The greater the environmental impact, the greater the chance that the PCs will encounter some element of that footprint.  They may or may not actually do so, and they may or may not have the knowledge to determine what the footprint actually indicates.​ 
Some may disagree with this, but I note that even Hussar's arguments are not that the medusa wouldn't have a "footprint" per se, but more about how she might be able to reduce the opportunity to discover that footprint and/or interpret it correctly.

As you say, there can be all kinds of reasons that the PCs don't encounter warning signs prior to an encounter, or misinterpret what signs they do encounter.  After all, warning signs are part of the _*environment*_, not part of the _*encounter*_.  

It is only when one begins to think of GMing as making a series of discrete _*encounters*_, as opposed to the creation of a continuous *environment* in which various encounters may (or may not) take place, that these problems arise.  IMHO, and IME.

Nowhere have I said that the PCs must stumble upon a creature's footprint in advance.  Each time that others have tried to claim that this is my position, I have attempted to clarify that this is not my position.  Indeed, the player's knowledge that they might have missed/misinterpreted clues is vital for the game to remain interesting, IMHO, and as I said upthread.

Take it away from SoD creatures, and the same point is vaild to exactly the same degree.

Example 1:  The game includes powerful monsters, which are capable of handing low-level PCs their tushies quite easily.  You can (1) make a world in which it is impossible to encounter such creatures at low levels, (2) allow the PCs to simply randomly encounter such creatures at any level, or (3) create a self-referential world in which it is possible to learn that spiders dwell in Mirkwood, goblins in the Misty Mountains, and Smaug in the Lonely Mountain, and let the players choose what they feel up to dealing with.

They might discover trolls, and stone giants, and eagles, and wargs, and Beorn, and elves, and Gollum as well.....that choice doesn't mean that there is nothing to learn.  The people in Laketown might believe that the dragon is a myth, and Gandalf might tell them to take a road that goes nowhere (good thing they left the path after all!) -- not all advice is good.  Even Elrond was unaware that the goblins had opened a door on the "safe" pass.

But all of these things could, potentially, be learned prior to being met.  And, for many of them, Tolkein makes certain to tell the reader what "footprints" they had (even if the dwarves and Bilbo never learn of it).  The trolls are stealing sheep from local farms (or worse), and Elrond's folk know that trolls have come down from the mountains (and warn Gandalf).  The goblins know something foul is down by the lake, even if they never impart that to Bilbo before he meets Gollum.  The goblins are also well aware of the great eagles of the Misty Mountains....as is Gandalf, who once rendered their king a service.  Etc., etc.

Example 2:  The Wolf-in-Sheep's-Clothing.

This monster (originally from _*Expedition to the Barrier Peaks*_) almost never works for DMs, because most DMs forget the necessity of providing elements of the natural world with a viable "footprint".  Bunnies are never encountered, ergo, if bunnies are encountered now, they must not really be bunnies.

Similarly, the DM never mentions ravens normally, ergo this must be a wizard's familiar.

----

Providing "footprints" is, IMHO, just part of good GMing.  If you do it well, players will engage with the world you offer because it is interesting and profitable to do so.  Fail to do it, and there is little wonder that things just seem to pop out of the woodwork, or that the players never mistake that Guardian Familiar for a normal cat.

------

EDIT:  On further consideration, the problem Hussar describes with SoD monsters is rather similar to that he has described for so-called "gotcha!" monsters in the past.  If one assumes that a creature exists merely to appear in a discrete encounter, no wonder it seems to be some form of "gotcha!"  When we discussed the rust monster, for example, I was able to describe uses I've made of that creature within actual play, which he seemed to believe required some unusual convolution of thought, whereas I considered that normative for what I call "good GMing".  

Perhaps this is an artifact of following the DMing advice in the 3.x books, where the "unit" of an adventure is an encounter.  I recommend instead consideration of the whole, and then, when writing individual encounters, trying to imagine how what is written will affect the whole.  Do the inhabitants of the ruins know that there are intelligent otyughs living in the Filthfall Middens?  If so, do they talk to them?  Are the Middens a neutral truce ground, because everyone needs to dump their trash, or are they the site of constant skirmishing?  In either case, what do the otyughs know as a result?  Etc., etc.

When placing wandering encounters on a table, it makes sense for the GM to consider what effects those encounters have on the environment.  A dungeon level with wandering gelatinous cubes looks very different than one without.  Wandering rats will leave rat droppings (which become part of the dungeon dressing).  Rust monsters consume the hinges from doors, knobs, pull rings, and so on.  Again, etc. etc.

RC


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 30, 2010)

awesomeocalypse said:


> I'm about as "new school" as it gets in what I look for in most of my games--that is, involved character creation, balanced combats which ultimately favor the players, no "fantasy vietnam syndrome", plots and encounters tailored to my character, etc. Simply put, I don't want to play some guy who lives in a fantasy world. Nor do I want to play "a hero". I want to play THE hero, the guy who, were the game a novel, would be considered the main character (or one of them, at least). If the world doesn't revolve around my character, I don't generally have a huge interest in the game.



With an approach like that, you'd last less than ten minutes at my table. 

What happened to the idea of getting out and doing the necessary in-game legwork to *make* the world revolve around your character (or preferably, party)?  Why should anyone care about you before you've done the Great Deeds that make you a hero?

A good analogy is a pro sports player.  He (or she) has to put in the time and score the goals/hit the home runs/whatever to show they are the best; only after doing that do they get into the Hall of Fame.  You seem to want to start out already in the Hall.

About the only story types that suit what you want are the "child of prophecy" sort of things e.g. David Eddings' _Belgariad_ series (one of my all-time favourites, by the way); and while that works wonderfully for literature it sets up to fail dismally in a game - believe me, I've tried it - unless the DM makes you death-proof, at which point the game becomes a farce.

Lan-"around here, 10 adventures gets you in the Hall of Heroes"-efan


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 30, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> About the only story types that suit what you want are the "child of prophecy" sort of things e.g. David Eddings' _Belgariad_ series (one of my all-time favourites, by the way); and while that works wonderfully for literature it sets up to fail dismally in a game - believe me, I've tried it - unless the DM makes you death-proof, at which point the game becomes a farce.




I think you're misreading what he's looking for. He's not asking to be the 'Hero of Prophecy', he's just asking to be the _protaganist_. 

At least, that tends to be my take on it. A player looking for the world to revolve around them isn't asking to be the most important character in the setting - rather, they just want the plot to be _in front of them_, and accessible, and something that they can _influence and affect_ by their own actions. 

Rather than being, instead, immersed in a huge sandbox setting with tons of other stories going on, and the plot being driven by powerful NPCs of the DM's creation. Now, there is certainly room for campaigns like that, or with some of those qualities, and working your way into such stories can be a thrilling experience. 

But not necessarily one preferred by everyone. I know I've been in games of that sort, and while I like the _idea_ of a sandbox environment, the actual experience was incredibly frustrating. _What plot thread should I be chasing? Who do I ally with? Where do I go from here? What decision does the DM *expect* me to make? _

Now, in a good game, there are many roads to success, and the DM can provide guidance for players to make enlightened decisions without feeling like they are stumbling in the dark. But it's also all too easy to feel like it isn't a question of challenging the character, but instead the player, and the skill they need to master is predicting how the DM thinks. 

Having a game where you can involve yourself in the plot without playing a guessing game? There is _plenty _of room for a character to still rise to the occasion and prove themselves worthy of being a hero. Preferring a game where you are the protaganist, and deeply immersed in the plot rather than watching it as a bystander, is a _very_ far cry from wanting to simply be spoon-fed the life of a hero.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 30, 2010)

MrMyth said:
			
		

> Again, RC, the issue at hand isn't the idea of having signs of a monster's presence available. It is that your argument seems to take that to the extreme expectation that there are never situations where PCs don't come across those signs or find themselves without the knowledge to interpret them correctly.



Yes. The more you go down that path, the more it looks as if you are holding up the same yardstick of expectations as Hussar, and merely arguing over how poorly certain corner cases measure up.

For that matter, Hussar wrote that he really was not interested in even that standard. His repeated assumption that players will not take even the most rudimentary precautions -- applicable to much more than "SoD" effects -- reinforces my impression of the firmness of that position.



			
				MrMyth said:
			
		

> Similarly, is it that unreasonable to assume that some encounters may happen without tons of advance warning?



I think it is not unreasonable at all. In the end, one either accepts the role of the rolls in playing the game, or one plays a different game.

However, there is also a HUGE difference between the game in which players have strategic moves, permitting investigation to inform the series of decisions that lead ultimately to running headlong into either Demogorgon and his demonic hosts, or a handful of kobolds -- the game in which it is up to _the players_ to take whatever measures they will -- and the game in which "encounters" are what _the DM_ chooses for them as part of "the adventure" that is the DM's design.

In the former case, it is by default _not at all_ necessarily a matter of having "tons of advance warning". It is not the player's role passively to receive "warnings". It is the player's role actively to investigate and extrapolate. It is the same in a card game, or in a board game of World War 2 -- really in almost any game that comes to my mind.



> You keep presenting this as an either/or situation: Either all encounters contain a reasonable footprint that the PCs will have the opportunity to discover and knowledge to decipher, or a game lacks any internal inconsistency.



I suppose the contrary could be true, but I doubt that RC's intent was absolutely to deny such a bizarre possibility.

I think it suffices that, if there is even a moderate correspondence to the reality of causes and effects we know, such as what even the weirdest RPGs in my experience assume, then any monster -- like any other phenomenon -- is a cause of effects that propagate through the world.

That something _can_ be discovered is very, very far from a guarantee that it _shall_ be discovered. It is in fact in narrowing that gap that the game lies.

Again, there are other possible games we can play. We can play one in which players are guaranteed certain knowledge every step of the way, regardless of their actions or inactions, and the game lies elsewhere. We can play one in which players are guaranteed a good chance of survival and success in any encounter, regardless of their prior actions or inactions, and the game lies elsewhere.

I am sure we could come up with several more.


----------



## Nagol (Aug 30, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> <snip>
> 
> 
> But not necessarily one preferred by everyone. I know I've been in games of that sort, and while I like the _idea_ of a sandbox environment, the actual experience was incredibly frustrating. _What plot thread should I be chasing? Who do I ally with? Where do I go from here? What decision does the DM *expect* me to make? _
> ...




In what I think of as a sandbox, the DM doesn't expect you to make any particular decision -- merely make *a* decision and move forward.  The decision should feel right to the character being played.  Hopefully, the strategic and tactical play will lead to further greatness and a stronger presence in the campaign world.

There's a difference between a protagonist and "the protagonist" whom the world orbits.  Other games that don't involve a "growing into power" theme often work better for being "the protagonist" than D&D does.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 30, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If a game world is to have internal consistency, all creatures that can be encountered should have a "footprint" which is consistent with their effects on the environment. The greater the environmental impact, the greater the chance that the PCs will encounter some element of that footprint. They may or may not actually do so, and they may or may not have the knowledge to determine what the footprint actually indicates.
> 
> 
> Some may disagree with this, but I note that even Hussar's arguments are not that the medusa wouldn't have a "footprint" per se, but more about how she might be able to reduce the opportunity to discover that footprint and/or interpret it correctly.




I don't think anyone is arguing that those footprints don't exist in potentiality. The question is whether PCs will always come across them. Your statement of things now indicates that you always want PCs to have the _chance_ of encountering them and the _potential_ to decipher them... and I don't particularly disagree with that. 

But at the same time, there would seem to be encounters where that 'footprint' is nearly impossible to find. Such as a Bodak created to guard an evil lair. Or a wizard who happens to know Prismatic Spray. Or an assassin taking measures to conceal his presence. 

Your argument is that even in those situations, there should be some possible tell-tale sign for the PCs. Assassins are _only_ sent out by kings who are known to use them. Even cautious monsters leave behind distinct enough remains to always pinpoint their specific nature. 

And this might be true, but I contend that in many situations, the bar to puzzle out the nature of the creature or foe is going to be beyond a PC's capability. Perhaps you could find enough information with powerful enough divination spells and extremely high monster knowledge skill checks. 

But not every group will have those, either due to party composition or simply level. And some of the opinions presented earlier in this thread were that, if PCs ended up in a situation where they were making Saves vs death, the fault was either on them for not being prepared, or the DM for not sufficiently preparing them. 

That seems to be what you are suggesting here - that every enemy has the _potential_ to be foreseen, and thus Save or Dies are acceptable because PCs _should_ take note of a monster's footprint and prepare accordingly. And if they don't, then the fault lies with them, rather than the nature of SoD itself. 

If this _isn't_ your viewpoint, then my apologies, and feel free to clarify - though in that case, I'm not particularly sure how this relates to the topic of SoD at all.


----------



## awesomeocalypse (Aug 30, 2010)

> With an approach like that, you'd last less than ten minutes at my table.




Probably, but then, Chances are I wouldn't be there in the first place. 



> What happened to the idea of getting out and doing the necessary in-game legwork to *make* the world revolve around your character (or preferably, party)? Why should anyone care about you before you've done the Great Deeds that make you a hero?....
> 
> About the only story types that suit what you want are the "child of prophecy" sort of things e.g. David Eddings' _Belgariad_ series (one of my all-time favourites, by the way); and while that works wonderfully for literature it sets up to fail dismally in a game - believe me, I've tried it - unless the DM makes you death-proof, at which point the game becomes a farce.




Certainly, child of prophecy is one way to give a character instant significance.

But it is FAR from the only way.

Perhaps the character has come into possession of a powerful artifact, which he is unable to properly wield, but which could devastate the world if it fell into the wrong hands. He and his party would become automatic targets for those dark forces, and achieve instant plot significance. It worked for this dude Frodo.

Or perhaps the character is the last living member of a royal line long-thought exstinguished. If he achieves sufficient power, the people may rally to him, but before he can do that he will have to cope with the powers that be that will do anything to prevent the return of the king.

You're entirely right, I have no interest at all in "earning" plot significance. I'm not interested in being some random dude who stumbles across some evil mastermind/monster/dire conflict which he has no prior connection with, and who then may or may not influence it in a significant way. I'm not interested in playing out other people's stories, except for those of the other PCs. 

That doesn't mean I want to be the most powerful dude around from day one. It just means I want the story to be about *me*. I don't want that evil overlord to try to kill me just because I happen to look like an adventurer and wandered into his lair. I want him to try to kill me because *I*, specifically, matter in some way to his goals. I don't want to fight some generic villain, I want to fight *my* villain, in the same way that Frodo deals with Sauron, that Batman deals with the Joker, that Superman deals with lex Luthor.



> I think you're misreading what he's looking for. He's not asking to be the 'Hero of Prophecy', he's just asking to be the _protaganist_.
> 
> At least, that tends to be my take on it. A player looking for the world to revolve around them isn't asking to be the most important character in the setting - rather, they just want the plot to be _in front of them_, and accessible, and something that they can _influence and affect_ by their own actions.




This. I don't need to be the most powerful dude in the universe. I just want a plot that is specifically about me, in which my playing a significant role isn't dependant on random chance.



> Rather than being, instead, immersed in a huge sandbox setting with tons of other stories going on, and the plot being driven by powerful NPCs of the DM's creation. Now, there is certainly room for campaigns like that, or with some of those qualities, and working your way into such stories can be a thrilling experience.
> 
> But not necessarily one preferred by everyone. I know I've been in games of that sort, and while I like the _idea_ of a sandbox environment, the actual experience was incredibly frustrating. _What plot thread should I be chasing? Who do I ally with? Where do I go from here? What decision does the DM *expect* me to make?_





Quite simply, I like railroads better than sandboxes, for precisely this reason. I don't want to be some random guy in a world that is chugging along fine without me, full of people more important than me, which I will then attempt to influence in some way of my choosing.

I want to be the protagonist. Those powerful people with their agendas? What is their connection to me, how do they affect my story? If the answer is "no connection, unless you 'earn' one", then I'm not interested.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 30, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing that those footprints don't exist in potentiality. The question is whether PCs will always come across them. Your statement of things now indicates that you always want PCs to have the _chance_ of encountering them and the _potential_ to decipher them... and I don't particularly disagree with that.




As opposed to _*my*_ statement of things _*when*_?



> But at the same time, there would seem to be encounters where that 'footprint' is nearly impossible to find. Such as a Bodak created to guard an evil lair. Or a wizard who happens to know Prismatic Spray. Or an assassin taking measures to conceal his presence.
> 
> Your argument is that even in those situations, there should be some possible tell-tale sign for the PCs. Assassins are _only_ sent out by kings who are known to use them. Even cautious monsters leave behind distinct enough remains to always pinpoint their specific nature.




More to the point:

*  The bodak created to guard an evil lair was created by someone with the potential to create bodaks.  Unless it happens to be the first and only bodak that someone ever created......

*  The wizard who happens to know Prismatic Spray researched it or learned it from somewhere.  And, unless it happens to be the first time he's ever cast it........

*  Assassins can be sent out by lots of folks, but they are usually folks who have reasons to have sent out assassins.  But, here's an interesting point -- assassins, unlike bodaks and wizards, are real.  They really do target real people in the real world.  And, while you or I might not have much of a chance were we randomly targetted for some unknowable reason, the people in the real world who are likely to be targetted by assassins really take real world precautions.

And, sure, there may be individual cases where the footprints are very unlikely to be found.  If that makes sense within the setting -- if the footprint is "consistent and self-referential", I have no problem with that.  Sometimes, unlikely to be found is what "consistent and self-referential" means!



> And some of the opinions presented earlier in this thread were that, if PCs ended up in a situation where they were making Saves vs death, the fault was either on them for not being prepared, or the DM for not sufficiently preparing them.




"Fault" is a loaded term here.  If you mean that the players or DM are bad players or DMs, I wouldn't say that.  If you mean the players took a mistep, or the DM failed to provide that potential, then I would agree that there is fault in that sense.

I would say that "every enemy has the _potential_ to be foreseen, and PCs _should_ take note of a monster's footprint and prepare accordingly."  I wouldn't hook that into my argument about why SoD is acceptable though.  What you are describing is my answer to the argument made for Hussar why SoD is *bad*.

As far as I am concerned, the potential to deal with SoD is no different than the potential to encounter a monster far, far tougher than the PCs.  I like SoD because it meshes with my idea of how certain creatures/effects should be presented in the rules, but what SoD monsters offer (the chance for getting well and truly creamed) can be offered by non-SoD monsters just as easily.

And I do believe that the tension of not knowing for sure whether or not you've parsed out the threat level of an adventure site is critical to keeping the excitement level in the game.  

When people say "You can't go back to the gaming of your youth", I often think they are talking about that tension of not knowing.  My answer is, "Sure you can.  You just need a ruleset that plays fast, and a willingness to let the players -- not the GM -- set the level of risk."

That is, IMHO, part of why players don't seem to mind SoD as much as GMs.  

Allowing for the chance of the PCs getting well and truly creamed is part of letting the players set the risk.  Eliminating it damages the game, IMHO.  SoD isn't the only way to do it, but it isn't a particularly bad way to do it, either.  Likewise, SSSoD can be interesting and fun.  They are both tools, and only slightly different at that.

I have no desire to limit the tools at my dispossal.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 30, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Nor is it my argument that "there are never situations where PCs don't come across those signs or find themselves without the knowledge to interpret them correctly" -- that is Hussar's interpretation of my argument.



You know his S.O.P.. You have played into it with your emphasis.



> I merely require that it be possible. Whether or not the PCs actually come across those signs, and whether or not the players interpret them correctly, is besides the point. I only require a "footprint" that is "consistent and self-referential".



THAT is what needs emphasis, as well as the context in which the probability makes sense.

The bottom line is that Hussar wants something else, a whole different context.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 30, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> there is also a HUGE difference between the game in which players have strategic moves, permitting investigation to inform the series of decisions that lead ultimately to running headlong into either Demogorgon and his demonic hosts, or a handful of kobolds -- the game in which it is up to _the players_ to take whatever measures they will -- and the game in which "encounters" are what _the DM_ chooses for them as part of "the adventure" that is the DM's design.
> 
> In the former case, it is by default _not at all_ necessarily a matter of having "tons of advance warning". It is not the player's role passively to receive "warnings". It is the player's role actively to investigate and extrapolate.




This is where the crux of the problem lies, IMHO.



> That something _can_ be discovered is very, very far from a guarantee that it _shall_ be discovered. It is in fact in narrowing that gap that the game lies.




Agreed!  I discussed this somewhat upthread as well.

I find myself somewhat sad at how often I am now responding to Hussar's straw man of my position, and how little people seem to have actually read what I wrote.   


RC


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 30, 2010)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> What happened to the idea of getting out and doing the necessary in-game legwork to *make* the world revolve around your character (or preferably, party)?



It fell before the onslaught of a new demographic.

I don't know, man. Maybe we could mount a counter-invasion of Exalted, but besides two wrongs not making a right I think we are outnumbered.

Anyhow, it does not require something like the Belgariad as a basis. If the intent is to copy the assurances of _any_ story, then the game -- the D&D game as you and I have known it -- is up.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 30, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> As opposed to _*my*_ statement of things _*when*_?




I'll get into that a bit below, but the original position you had seemed to take - which could have been a misreading on my part - was that you would always make a monster's footprint _obvious_ to the PCs, rather than simply something that they had the _potential_ to find and understand. 



Raven Crowking said:


> * The bodak created to guard an evil lair was created by someone with the potential to create bodaks. Unless it happens to be the first and only bodak that someone ever created......




Sure, but how do you know he created a Bodak and not, say, some other nasty sort of undead? Or some sort of golem? Or any number of other magical guardians? 

Now, a group could simply assume that any monster is capable of death attacks, and prepare accordingly - but that might get into the 'magical arms race' of having high level clerics able to cast extended chained Death Wards or whatever. For groups without that, what is the proper precautions to take? Enter the fight blind, on the possibility it might be a creature with a death gaze?

And yes, there are ways they could definitively find out... generally through, again, potent magic such as divinations. (Assuming the enemy hasn't taken precautions against that.) The options left to a more standard or level-appropriate adventuring group might involve sending in a scout - and IDing the Bodak could well result in dying to it. 



Raven Crowking said:


> * The wizard who happens to know Prismatic Spray researched it or learned it from somewhere. And, unless it happens to be the first time he's ever cast it........




Sure, there could be evidence somewhere. Maybe it is obvious - bards regularly telling tales of his magical duels, for example. Maybe it is less so - they would have to actively know his mentor in the magical arts, or find a copy of his spellbook. And maybe it is almost impossible to know - he could be a sorcerer who just learned it, or they could be in a foreign land confronting him for the first time, with no rational reason why they would have researched his spellcasting habits in advance. 

That's the issue, again - there are plenty of situations where you _can_ come up with ways for the PCs to have access to this info... but also plenty of situations where they can't. Or rather, where the potential is there, as you desire, but it is so incredibly small as to be irrelevant. 



Raven Crowking said:


> * * Assassins can be sent out by lots of folks, but they are usually folks who have reasons to have sent out assassins. But, here's an interesting point -- assassins, unlike bodaks and wizards, are real. They really do target real people in the real world. And, while you or I might not have much of a chance were we randomly targetted for some unknowable reason, the people in the real world who are likely to be targetted by assassins really take real world precautions.




Maybe so. What precautions can PCs take? Investing in some sort of magical trick that will protect against death attacks? Again, you are getting into the magical arms race, and require some pretty serious resources or really optimized tricks to ensure that the suspicion an assassin might come after you translates to protection from the SoD. 

*Tangent, because it's amusing: My group used to have a joke where everyone would constantly declare that they believed every square within 100' of them was always filled with invisible assassins, since the wording on the assassin's Death Attack said it didn't work if the target was aware of you, and so by declaring that invisible assassins were everywhere, you were safe if there happened to actually be one. I'm pretty sure that didn't actually work, but it was an entertaiing concept.*



Raven Crowking said:


> * And, sure, there may be individual cases where the footprints are very unlikely to be found. If that makes sense within the setting -- if the footprint is "consistent and self-referential", I have no problem with that. Sometimes, unlikely to be found is what "consistent and self-referential" means!




Yeah, I think that's pretty much what we've been saying all along - some times, what is most reasonable is that the footprints _will _be hard to find (if not nigh-impossible.) Perhaps the main disagreement here is simply how often that is the case - Ariosto comments that it is only in "certain corner cases" (if I'm reading him correctly), but I don't think it is nearly that rare. 

Also, I mean to apologize for muddying the waters with the issue being about "PCs being at fault", since that wasn't specifically your point in the past. It was raised in the thread, and I think it does tie it, but isn't where this particularly thread unravelled from. 

Rather, I believe this came up from your earlier talk that every SoD was technically a SSSSSoD, in that it was the result of many rolls and actions taken before the SoD effect was actually encountered. 

That argument was rooted, strongly, in this claim that every monster has a distinct footprint which PCs could respond to. Thus, you felt that PCs reacting to the footprint and then encountering the SoD was a similar situation to PCs entering a fight with a monster, feeling the initial effects of a SSSoD, and reacting to that. 

(If I've got your argument wrong at any point here, just let me know.)

Now, I'd argue that the two are somewhat different simply due to the immediacy of one compared to the other... but even if you don't consider that, I think the point doesn't hold up because, as you note, note all footprints are reliably found. 

If a party goes to enter an evil wizard's lair, and there is a Bodak inside, there may be checks they could have made to know this in advance - perhaps rolling Knowledge: Nature to notice dead creatures (without a mark upon them) outside its lair, and Knowledge: Religion to realize this is the work of a Bodak. 

If, however, the wizard has kept the Bodak confined inside (perhaps to ensure it is always in the presence of what it is guarding, or perhaps because being active around his lair would cause trouble for his other minions), then those checks go away. 

There could still be ways to learn of its presence - notably powerful divination or the like - but those resources aren't always there. And, most importantly, the PCs don't know the immediate consequences of their actions. 

If I am in a fight, and I slowly start turning to stone, I know that I have different options - do I continue to throw myself in the fight, regardless of the consequences, to try and win victory for my friends? Or do I try and focus on fighting off the petrification, even if it means the tide of battle might turn against us? I don't know the right answer, but I at least have a general idea of the question. 

If there is a SoD monster floating about somewhere, and I don't yet know about it, while there may be courses of action that reveal its presence and nature, I don't know in advance what they are or the consequences of looking into them or not. So while there may be a number of checks that lead up to the fight, they aren't enlightened ones - and, thus, the SoD itself remains a SoD, despite the fact that it happens as part of an adventure in which many other checks have been made.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 30, 2010)

awesomeocalypse said:


> You're entirely right, I have no interest at all in "earning" plot significance. I'm not interested in being some random dude who stumbles across some evil mastermind/monster/dire conflict which he has no prior connection with, and who then may or may not influence it in a significant way. I'm not interested in playing out other people's stories, except for those of the other PCs.
> 
> That doesn't mean I want to be the most powerful dude around from day one. It just means I want the story to be about *me*. I don't want that evil overlord to try to kill me just because I happen to look like an adventurer and wandered into his lair. I want him to try to kill me because *I*, specifically, matter in some way to his goals.



Wander into his lair and start bustin' it up and you'll matter to his goals pretty damn quick!  But that's just my point: it's up to you to put yourself on his radar.


> I don't want to fight some generic villain, I want to fight *my* villain, in the same way that Frodo deals with Sauron, that Batman deals with the Joker, that Superman deals with lex Luthor.



And once you've fought and beaten him, what then?  Do you just fade into the sunset like Frodo does?


> Quite simply, I like railroads better than sandboxes, for precisely this reason. I don't want to be some random guy in a world that is chugging along fine without me, full of people more important than me, which I will then attempt to influence in some way of my choosing.
> 
> I want to be the protagonist. Those powerful people with their agendas? What is their connection to me, how do they affect my story? If the answer is "no connection, unless you 'earn' one", then I'm not interested.



Sounds a bit selfish, taken at face value...

Now, if everything you were saying was about "the party" rather than "me" all the time then I could get behind it at least somewhat; because the party *is* the key ingredient.  The party, as a whole.

But the party is greater than any of its individual characters!  Characters come and go...my analogy again is a sports team, where players come and go but the team carries on year after year.  Ditto for the party: it too (usually) remains and carries on; and through its deeds is going to attract attention quickly enough, both good and bad.

Lan-"Hall of Heroes - 1989"-efan


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 30, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I'll get into that a bit below, but the original position you had seemed to take - which could have been a misreading on my part - was that you would always make a monster's footprint _obvious_ to the PCs, rather than simply something that they had the _potential_ to find and understand.




I am looking forward to finding out how you drew that conclusion.

Specific examples aside, because they could be argued back and forth until the InterWeb crashes down around us, would you or would you not agree that, _*often*_ some clue is available (even if not discovered, or not properly understood)?  What I mean here is that, although some times, what is most reasonable is that the footprints _will_ be impossible or nigh-impossible, that "impossible or nigh-impossible" itself is a corner-case?

Both your and Hussar's examples seem to come from 3.x, and I am certainly willing to agree that many changes in 3.x were not for the better.  Indeed, the more I examine WotC-D&D, the more I conclude that the designers don't really understand Gygaxian D&D.

As I discussed upthread, there is always tension between random elements and narrative control.  The more narrative control you want, the more you must eliminate randomness to achieve it.

In the Gygaxian model of normal campaign play, the players set goals and attempt to achieve them.  The use of divination, seeking rumours, scouting, etc., both in formulating and achieving goals is part of what the players do.  Rather than writing a novel for the players to play through, the DM creates the backdrop, runs the NPCs, runs the monsters, and adjudicates the results.  The GM is a world designer, or a _*setting designer*_ if you prefer -- he is not a frustrated novelist!

The elements of the earlier games are designed to facilitate this style of play.  It doesn't matter if Character A is balanced against Character B, so long as the players involved get to decide whether or not A and B are going on expeditions together.  Likewise, it is not incumbent upon the DM to tell the players that there is a medusa on Level 7 with a glowing neon sign.  All the DM must do is ensure that the medusa being there makes sense.....and well over 90% of the time, "makes sense" means "potentially predictable".

It is the tension between what is known, and what is unknown -- trying to predict, and then seeing how one's predictions bear out -- that offers one of the primary driving forces behind Gygaxian D&D.  If you really have no idea how this is intended to work from the player's side of the screen, I highly recommend reading Gygax's advice to players in the 1e PHB.

In the case of SoD, the problems caused by the 3e ruleset are twofold:

1.  DragonLance was very successful, but it was not the standard model of a 1e adventure series.  By 2e, the idea that the DM was "telling a story" (essentially, preselecting the goals of the players, and hence the encounters they would have while pursuing those goals) had crystalized.

When the DM chooses the encounters the PCs _*will have*_, he is no longer merely creating a fair and impartial environment in which any potential PC may operate -- he is designing encounters to be fair in relation to the particular PCs he envisions playing.  

Where, previously, a TPK was either bad luck or poor planning on the part of the players, suddenly a TPK...possibly even a single character death....becomes poor planning on the part of the DM.  It might also be "unfair".  Moreover, it throws off the balance of his other carefully prepared encounters, so that each becomes increasingly likely to exhibit "poor planning" or "unfairness" on the part of the DM.

Not surprisingly, under this paradigms, DMs like SoD far less than players do.

2.  The designers of 3e wanted to make levelling matter more than it did in previous editions, and so created a much steeper power curve.  Not only did this mean that slight variations in encounter design could have profound, unexpected consequences in actual play, but it fostered an "arms race mentality" between various players as well as between players and DM.

This compounds with (1) because, under the previous paradigm, players would seek the greatest rewards they might succeed at attaining, thus naturally "upping the ante" to more dangerous locations as they became more powerful.  The DM had merely to create a region that could support many levels of play, and the PCs would naturally seek out the play level that fit them best. 

No more.  Now the DM _*must*_ challenge the PCs.  Doing so requires giving the monsters more advantages -- foreshadowing becomes counterintuitive (even if it is still the best decision).

3.  Combat becomes increasingly grid-based from 3e to 3.5e to 4e, resulting in ever-longer encounters, with a resultant pressure to make every encounter "count".  "Lead up" encounters, scene-setting encounters, wandering monsters, etc., go by the wayside.  With the loss of wanderers, time pressure all but disappears, leading to the 15-minute adventuring day.  Now the DM must challenge the party at full strength with every encounter.  At the same time, the DM wants to prevent the players from knowing what is coming up (thus making sure that the encounter has maximum effect).

Worse, though, with long combats and long character creation times, dying has become more of a punishment than it once was.  Often, it is the DM who feels bad about Johnny sitting out more than Johnny himself does.  After all, Johnny probably needs the hour + to tweak his next character!

4.  As Ariosto pointed out, the power curve affects the monsters in 3e as well, so that, rather than any given SoD becoming _*less deadly*_ as the PCs become more powerful, they are either equally deadly at all levels, or bizarrely *more deadly* because of changes in how gaze attacks, etc., work.

----

As a result, if you want to argue that SoD is problematic in WotC-D&D, I will be happy to agree with you, provisionally.  But blaming the problems caused by WotC-D&D on the earlier mechanic is, IMHO and IME, simply wrong.



> Also, I mean to apologize for muddying the waters with the issue being about "PCs being at fault", since that wasn't specifically your point in the past.




Accepted.  That was another "interpretation of my point" that I am happy to put to rest.



> Rather, I believe this came up from your earlier talk that every SoD was technically a SSSSSoD, in that it was the result of many rolls and actions taken before the SoD effect was actually encountered.
> 
> That argument was rooted, strongly, in this claim that every monster has a distinct footprint which PCs could respond to.




Ah.  I see.

Every SSSoD perforce contains a SoD moment.  No matter how you slice it, every game in which D is a possibility has a last moment at which a single roll (or move) results either in D or not-D.

Likewise, every SoD (unless the game begins with a bodak jumping out of the closet) has a number of "moves" or "rolls" prior to the final die-rolling moment.  This is true whether or not "every monster has a distinct footprint which the PCs could respond to".  

Entering Dungeon Level 7, where you know CR 7 creatures are likely to lurk, is something that the players can react to, whether or not they know specifically which creatures they will encounter.  

My point is that, if one argues "All SoD is bad" then one must also agree (if one is to be consistent) that SSSoD is also bad, because it contains within it SoD.  Otherwise, one is left with the argument "SoD _*can be*_ bad", which is hardly contentious.  

The argument was made that, unlike SSSoD, SoD came out of the blue.  I made the counter-argument that this isn't necessarily so.....and is very, very often not so, if the GM is creating a game environment that is consistent.

Yes, the DM can set the players up so that they have no chance.  But this is not the fault of the SoD mechanic.....unless it is also the fault of having far more powerful monsters in the game than the party can handle at the moment.  In an actual "Players vs. DM" situation, the DM wins.  You don't need SoD for that, and SSSoD won't help you, either.

I mean, spiders and snakes were raised as a real concern with SoD, about which the party could do nothing to prepare, in a game that contains anti-toxin and the possibility of using a Heal check to "reroll" a failed save!  

Really, if we are going to discuss on the basis of "But the DM could screw the players over!" then all game mechanics are bad.  If we are going to argue that SoD is bad because of problems with the WotC-D&D implementation of them, then I am equally sure that I can find problems with _*someone's*_ implementation of any mechanic.

Ariosto already gave a pretty clear idea of how WotC-D&D's mechanics could be reverted back to those of an earlier edition, causing most (if not all) of the problems raised in this thread to disappear.

AFAICT, IMHO, and IME, the problem isn't SoD.  


RC


----------



## Starman (Aug 31, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Both your and Hussar's examples seem to come from 3.x, and I am certainly willing to agree that many changes in 3.x were not for the better.  Indeed, the more I examine WotC-D&D, the more I conclude that the designers don't really understand Gygaxian D&D.




Or perhaps they understood it perfectly well, but _rejected it_ as they felt the game should move in a different direction. Whatever one may think of 3e, I don't think one can credibly claim that Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, and Skip Williams were not "smart" enough to understand what Gygax was getting at. I think it is far more likely that they just disagreed with much of it.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 31, 2010)

I'd posrep Mr Myth some more for being able to phrase my concerns better than I can, but, gotta spread around, etc.

RC - Mr. Myth is nailing EXACTLY what my arguments were.  To a "T".  

The problem is, you're changing which edition we're talking about, in the middle of conversations and it makes it really hard to keep up.

Just pulling out this one specific quote, which is the crux of the issue for me:



			
				RC said:
			
		

> The argument was made that, unlike SSSoD, SoD came out of the blue. I made the counter-argument that this isn't necessarily so.....and is very, very often not so, if the GM is creating a game environment that is consistent.




Your argument is that it is much more likely that a creature's footprint should be readily apparent.  "Very, very often not so" = "Most of the time" at least as I understand the phrase.

So, your argument boils down to, "An adventuring party should very often have the opportunity to know exactly what they are facing before they face it".  That if the game world is consistent then the party will be able to learn what they will face in advence.

To me, this is utter ballocks.  "Rust Monsters eat doorknobs" only works if you actually have doornobs and metal hinges in a dungeon.  It also presumes that all adventures happen in traditioin D&D style dungeons.  What's wrong with stone doors?  Or no doors at all as in natural caverns?

But, as I said, it's virtually imposible to hit the target that moves so fast. In the course of a single post you go from 1e to 3e:



> Entering Dungeon Level 7, where you know CR 7 creatures are likely to lurk, is something that the players can react to, whether or not they know specifically which creatures they will encounter./snip
> 
> I mean, spiders and snakes were raised as a real concern with SoD, about which the party could do nothing to prepare, in a game that contains anti-toxin and the possibility of using a Heal check to "reroll" a failed save!




What game are you talking about?  At one time, you talk about the medusa stoning everything she sees, but, in 3e, medusa's can control their gaze - so why are they stoning everything?  If we go back to 1e, then encounter range doesn't matter because over 30 feet, the party cannot tell that the creature is a medusa - convenient when the creature's gaze attack reaches 30 feet.

You want to discuss specific editions?  Fine.  But, playing mix and match edition so that you can counter any point brought up is pointless.

I look at it like this:

Yes, you are right that creatures may have a "footprint".  Where the disagreement comes is that you presume that that footprint is discoverable by the party.  That, in order for a setting to be consistant, it must be detectable.  I disagree.  There are any number of ways you can hide the footprint of a creature.

To me, a creature which has a significant chance of instantly killing a PC is a poorly designed creature.  1hit die creatures don't do d100 points of damage on a hit for a reason.  Yes, there is a chance that the great axe wielding orc can do massive damage.  That's true.  That's also why 3.5 dumped the great axe for a falchion.  

But, please, I've already tried to distance myself from this thread once.  I just felt that since you continuously bring up my name, I had to make a few points of clarification.  Leave me out of things here.  You obviously don't agree with what I'm saying, and that's fine.  I disagree with you as well.

But disagreeing does not equal not understanding.  I understand what you're saying, and obviously there are a few other people who understand what you're saying as well.  I just disagree with you.  

The only way your limitation of SoD works, is if the footprint is detectable EVERY SINGLE TIME.  Because if it's not, then it becomes a surprise encounter, and SoD typically just means die for at least one character.  THAT'S why I disagree with you.  Your system will not work unless it happens every single time.  When a SoD encounter occurs that the party was not prepared for, the math is too loaded against the party.

I've asked this in this thread numerous times, and no one seems to be willing to take it up, so I'll ask it one more time.  Is a 1 hit die creature that does your current hit points plus 11 in damage every hit a well designed creature?  Why or why not?


----------



## billd91 (Aug 31, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I've asked this in this thread numerous times, and no one seems to be willing to take it up, so I'll ask it one more time.  Is a 1 hit die creature that does your current hit points plus 11 in damage every hit a well designed creature?  Why or why not?




What has this got to do with Save or Die mechanics when there are also very few creatures with 1 HD that have a save or die mechanic in 3e? The question you're posing here and the question of save or die mechanics, or even whether a 6HD monster with a SOD mechanic like the medusa is well designed, really aren't the same at all.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 31, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> The game includes powerful monsters, which are capable of handing low-level PCs their tushies quite easily.  You can (1) make a world in which it is impossible to encounter such creatures at low levels, (2) allow the PCs to simply randomly encounter such creatures at any level, or (3) create a self-referential world in which it is possible to learn that spiders dwell in Mirkwood, goblins in the Misty Mountains, and Smaug in the Lonely Mountain, and let the players choose what they feel up to dealing with.



Or (4) you can play/GM a game in which metagame and gameworld are separate: in the gameworld there is a chance of low-level PCs stumbling across the dragons, but there are metagame mechanics that prevent this from actually happening in the course of play. Those mechanics could be formal - perhaps players can play a fate card to cancel a wandering monster check - or informal, like the encounter guidelines in the 4E DMG.



Nagol said:


> There's a difference between a protagonist and "the protagonist" whom the world orbits.



Again, a bit of game/metagame distinction can help here. The gameworld needn't orbit around the PCs, who may be only minor figures (like Cugel or, at first, Bilbo). But the _game_ - which is a modest part of the real world - can nevertheless orbit around them and their doings



Lanefan said:


> Wander Sounds a bit selfish, taken at face value...



Selfishness is normally considered a vice because there are others who are worthy of equal respect and consideration. In the case of playing an RPG, it would be selfish for one player (or the GM) to insist on his/her protagonism at the expense of the others at the table. But no duty of altruism is owed to the NPCs in the gameworld, who don't actually exist! This therefore seems to be another case where a game/metagame distinction sheds some light.

I'll add that, in practice, given that playing the NPCs is generally the province of the GM, to request a player defer his/her protagonism in the interests of NPCs appears to be a irequest that the player confer more power/status/play significance upon the GM. This might sometimes be a reasonable request, but I don't think that it's always, or even often, a reasonable request.



Nagol said:


> Other games that don't involve a "growing into power" theme often work better for being "the protagonist" than D&D does.



Why do you say this? I think it depends on the edition of D&D. 4e, for example, seems very well suited for protagonism play - quest XP, epic destinies, etc - and I know from personal experience that it can be done with AD&D as well, at least once PCs get over the 1st and 2nd level speed-bump. And given that I know it can be done with Rolemaster, I imagine it can also be done with 3E.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 31, 2010)

pemerton said:


> Or (4) you can play/GM a game in which metagame and gameworld are separate: in the gameworld there is a chance of low-level PCs stumbling across the dragons, but there are metagame mechanics that prevent this from actually happening in the course of play. Those mechanics could be formal - perhaps players can play a fate card to cancel a wandering monster check - or informal, like the encounter guidelines in the 4E DMG.



Or even less formal, where the players pay attention to the game world as described (assuming, of course, the DM is at least vaguely on the ball with her descriptions) and just don't try to go where they know they won't survive.  (can you tell I'm not a big fan of metagame?)


> Selfishness is normally considered a vice because there are others who are worthy of equal respect and consideration. In the case of playing an RPG, it would be selfish for one player (or the GM) to insist on his/her protagonism at the expense of the others at the table. But no duty of altruism is owed to the NPCs in the gameworld, who don't actually exist! This therefore seems to be another case where a game/metagame distinction sheds some light.



The world's NPCs exist every bit as much as the PCs do.  They just don't get nearly as much airtime and 99.999+% of them never touch the game at all; but while these 99.999+% are irrelevant, they still exist. 


> Why do you say this? I think it depends on the edition of D&D. 4e, for example, seems very well suited for protagonism play - quest XP, epic destinies, etc - and I know from personal experience that it can be done with AD&D as well, at least once PCs get over the 1st and 2nd level speed-bump. And given that I know it can be done with Rolemaster, I imagine it can also be done with 3E.



You *can* do it with any edition.  The question is more whether you should have to, or be expected to.

Lan-"part of the 0.0001-%"-efan


----------



## Nagol (Aug 31, 2010)

pemerton said:


> Why do you say this? I think it depends on the edition of D&D. 4e, for example, seems very well suited for protagonism play - quest XP, epic destinies, etc - and I know from personal experience that it can be done with AD&D as well, at least once PCs get over the 1st and 2nd level speed-bump. And given that I know it can be done with Rolemaster, I imagine it can also be done with 3E.




Primarily, because stories around "the protagonist" typically are set where the character is at the near pinnacle of his power.  The narrative has shifted from "growing into power" to "being the one to", "use power responsibly", "correct wrongs", or "avert the calamity".  

And yes, I know many/most adventures in D&D will typically take those trappings, but the theme of "growing into power" underlies the game, especially in the newer versions where growth is continuous and improvements are substantial throughout the level progression.

Many other game systems -- Traveler, the Uni system, GURPS, and Hero, to name a few, allow "the protagonist" to start fully resolved and at power.  Growth is very gradual, if it happens at all.

Other systems like Ars Magica, Runequest (2nd - 3rd edition, I don't know the later mechanics), and Pendragon, have a relatively short phase of growth combined with a much more shallow power curve so that "the protagonist" narrative can be quickly asserted compared to D&D.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 31, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> * The bodak created to guard an evil lair was created by someone with the potential to create bodaks. Unless it happens to be the first and only bodak that someone ever created......




Kill the wandering monster table.  Dead.  Kaput.  Finished.  You should never roll to find what monsters there are in a dungeon.  At least not with SoD if you expect forewarning.



> * The wizard who happens to know Prismatic Spray researched it or learned it from somewhere. And, unless it happens to be the first time he's ever cast it........




He's a damn Wizard!  He probably has 30 spells in his spell book at a minimum.  That makes him too flexible to prepare against given that he can change his entire loadout on a day to day basis - unless he has a reputation for signature spells.



> And, sure, there may be individual cases where the footprints are very unlikely to be found. If that makes sense within the setting -- if the footprint is "consistent and self-referential", I have no problem with that. Sometimes, unlikely to be found is what "consistent and self-referential" means!




Then it shouldn't be an autokill.  Or at least not a commonly used one.  Wasps have stripes so other creatures know they are dangerous.  A weapon is a device for making the enemy change his mind.  So creatures want the fact they have big guns to be well known even if what they actually are is concealed.  Any other way is bad for long term survival.



> And I do believe that the tension of not knowing for sure whether or not you've parsed out the threat level of an adventure site is critical to keeping the excitement level in the game.




Heh.  My PCs know that one.



MrMyth said:


> I'll get into that a bit below, but the original position you had seemed to take - which could have been a misreading on my part - was that you would always make a monster's footprint _obvious_ to the PCs, rather than simply something that they had the _potential_ to find and understand.




SoD footprints should normally be obvious.  With the exception of non-confrontational monsters relying on camoflague.  And those are the sort who should let you alone if you let them alone.  And the much rarer possible exception of e.g. Trapdoor Spiders who are IMO far more fun if they _aren't_ SoD.  Desperate scrambles to get the captured PC back are far more interesting than dead PCs.



> Sure, but how do you know he created a Bodak and not, say, some other nasty sort of undead? Or some sort of golem? Or any number of other magical guardians?




Exactly.  Or both.  Wizards in pre-4e are too versatile to really prepare for.



> Now, a group could simply assume that any monster is capable of death attacks, and prepare accordingly - but that might get into the 'magical arms race' of having high level clerics able to cast extended chained Death Wards or whatever. For groups without that, what is the proper precautions to take? Enter the fight blind, on the possibility it might be a creature with a death gaze?




Give them the damn statues to find.  And make the Medusa matter - the actual Medusa of myth rather than Monster #23.



> Sure, there could be evidence somewhere. Maybe it is obvious - bards regularly telling tales of his magical duels, for example. Maybe it is less so - they would have to actively know his mentor in the magical arts, or find a copy of his spellbook. And maybe it is almost impossible to know - he could be a sorcerer who just learned it, or they could be in a foreign land confronting him for the first time, with no rational reason why they would have researched his spellcasting habits in advance.




And if the copy of his spellbook (good luck finding that) said he knew Finger of Death, Prismatic Spray, and Baleful Polymorph?  Which do you prepare for anyway.



> That argument was rooted, strongly, in this claim that every monster has a distinct footprint which PCs could respond to. Thus, you felt that PCs reacting to the footprint and then encountering the SoD was a similar situation to PCs entering a fight with a monster, feeling the initial effects of a SSSoD, and reacting to that.




But SoD doesn't add much over massive damage.  Except arbitrariness.



> If I am in a fight, and I slowly start turning to stone, I know that I have different options - do I continue to throw myself in the fight, regardless of the consequences, to try and win victory for my friends? Or do I try and focus on fighting off the petrification, even if it means the tide of battle might turn against us? I don't know the right answer, but I at least have a general idea of the question.




And it gets more interesting because _there is no right answer_.  My paladin will do one thing, my rogue another.  There's something to respond to and RP off.  Not "Urk!  I'm Dead!"  Or even "Only an idiot would fail to take precautions x,y,z in the magical arms race".



Hussar said:


> Yet, I'm told, that the way to use a medusa is to make sure that her presence is detectable by a party. Apparently the medusa, despite being pretty smart, will always leave her used tools out where wandering people can find them and will only be encountered shortly after turning someone else to stone, thus giving the party a chance to hear her breaking apart the statue.




Breaking a statue to pieces is hard and annoying.  Laziness matters.  But *none* of the pro SoD people have as far as I rememeber answered the challenge that the Medusa's snakes can't be spotted from range - the damn thing's a gotcha.



Raven Crowking said:


> Specific examples aside, because they could be argued back and forth until the InterWeb crashes down around us, would you or would you not agree that, _*often*_ some clue is available (even if not discovered, or not properly understood)?




So?  That means sometimes it isn't.



> Indeed, the more I examine WotC-D&D, the more I conclude that the designers don't really understand Gygaxian D&D.




3e was the edition after the non-Gygaxian 2e.

But you assume didn't like is the same as didn't understand.  My opinion on 3e (and 4e) being non-Gygaxian D&D is "Ding, dong, the witch is dead!"  Now maybe we can have ecologies that make sense.  Not a jerk system with a designer who invents creatures to infest doors and jump into peoples' ears because he doesn't like PCs listening at them - however stupid the ecology of this is.  (EGG on Dragonsfoot).  Ecologies were best in the 2e (i.e. non-Gygaxian) era.  Gygaxian D&D was the worst sort of DM gotcha game.  And I for one wouldn't be playing D&D if it was still Gygaxian.  (I'd love to play Arnesonian D&D on the other hand).



> In the Gygaxian model of normal campaign play, the players set goals and attempt to achieve them. The use of divination, seeking rumours, scouting, etc., both in formulating and achieving goals is part of what the players do. Rather than writing a novel for the players to play through, the DM creates the backdrop, runs the NPCs, runs the monsters, and adjudicates the results. The GM is a world designer, or a _*setting designer*_ if you prefer -- he is not a frustrated novelist!




I'm stetting up a sandbox campaign now.  3e and 4e in no way killed the sandbox or are otherwise hostile to it.  It is no longer the default mode of play (I have never once run a dungeon in 4e).



> No more. Now the DM _*must*_ challenge the PCs. Doing so requires giving the monsters more advantages -- foreshadowing becomes counterintuitive (even if it is still the best decision).




Of _course_ foreshadowing is counterintuitive if you are trying to run a more narrative game.  I mean, foreshadowing is not and has never been a literary device.  Whereas there was no such thing as a wandering monster table containing Save or Die monsters in Gygaxian D&D that would produce monsters that weren't foreshadowed.  Riiight.



> Every SSSoD perforce contains a SoD moment. No matter how you slice it, every game in which D is a possibility has a last moment at which a single roll (or move) results either in D or not-D.[/quoet]
> 
> It's a matter of foreshadowing and avoidance.  Something encouraged in more narrative games.
> 
> And, for the record, the Wolf In Sheeps Clothing makes no sense at all anywhere there aren't bunnies - it's like disguising yourself as a member of the wrong army to sneak into the camp.  If that's a clue, you're doing something weird.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2010)

Starman said:


> Or perhaps they understood it perfectly well, but _rejected it_ as they felt the game should move in a different direction.




Cool if true, but I am now very skeptical of that position.  If they understood it perfectly well, they could have devised game rules (presumably) that both moved the game in a different direction, and which did not cause problems specifically associated with the things they rejected.

If you remove a load-bearing wall, without putting anything in place to bear the same load, and then are dumb-founded when the structure collapses, I simply cannot agree that you understood what the wall was doing perfectly well.



Hussar said:


> RC - Mr. Myth is nailing EXACTLY what my arguments were.  To a "T".




Then my answers to Mr. Myth may serve as answers to you as well.  



> Your argument is that it is much more likely that a creature's footprint should be readily apparent.  "Very, very often not so" = "Most of the time" at least as I understand the phrase.
> 
> So, your argument boils down to, "An adventuring party should very often have the opportunity to know exactly what they are facing before they face it".  That if the game world is consistent then the party will be able to learn what they will face in advence.




Once more, you misunderstand.  Is this intentional, are you not reading my posts, or am I that poor a writer?

1.  A creature's footprint is seldom hidden so that it is nearly impossible to find.

2.  This implies that a creature's footprint can generally be found, not that it is "readily apparent".

3.  Once a creature's footprint is found, it must be both recognized as a creature's footprint and the creature identified.  

When I was camping last week at Elora Gorge, a print appeared on some of my gear.  I could not readily identify it, despite spending a lot of time in the woods.  Two photos were taken, and it took some time with my tracking books before I tentatively concluded that the track was either that of a pine martin or a fisher.  Since we were camping amid cedars with plenty of red squirrels around (which pine martins eat), I concluded that it was probably the track of a pine martin.  But I am by no means certain.

Remember the examples from _*The Hobbit*_, above?  The "party" knew that there was a dragon at the end of their road.  They knew that there were goblins in the mountains.  They (or at least the dwarves and Bilbo) did not know about the trolls, the stone giants, Gollum, the giant eagles, Beorn, or the giant spiders.  The dwarves, or at least Thorin, knew that there were wood elves in Mirkwood.

Nonetheless, each of those creatures -- except the stone giants -- are given very specific "footprints" by Tolkein.  Certainly, the dwarves and Bilbo could have predicted the giant spiders from the many webs strung between the trees and the enormous "insect eyes" seen at night.

And also, frankly, for someone who has expressed interest in using "literary devices" in gaming, I am amazed that you would deny the value of foreshadowing in a game environment.  

On another message board, there was a discussion about whether or not a dungeon can actually be made "scary".  I have certainly had that experience on both sides of the screen, and in all cases a dungeon is made scary by two basic principles:

(1)  Tension between what you think you know and what actually is, and

(2)  Tension generated from wondering exactly when and where a really big problem that you anticipate will occur.

Both of these forms of tension require foreshadowing.  There must be the means to guess what will occur to think you know anything.  There must be the means to predict a major problem in order to anticipate it.  

The highly-recommended Paizo module _*Carrion Hill*_ makes great use of foreshadowing to build exactly this sort of effect.  I recently ran a slightly modified version of that module, and it was greatly successful.  When the "big bad" finally showed up, the players were so unnerved that the PCs skipped town!



> "Rust Monsters eat doorknobs" only works if you actually have doornobs and metal hinges in a dungeon.




Obviously.  And spider webs between trees are not a footprint for giant spiders when there are no trees.  That isn't the point.  If there is nothing metal in the dungeon for the rust monsters to eat, what are they doing there?  A good GM builds "footprints" (both for creatures and environmental features -- a room with a huge pool of lava is going to affect surrounding areas, for instance!) based on what is in the setting.

Change the setting, and you change the footprint.  You do not eliminate it.



> But disagreeing does not equal not understanding.  I understand what you're saying, and obviously there are a few other people who understand what you're saying as well.  I just disagree with you.




Obviously disagreeing =/= not understanding.  But telling me, over and over, what I mean, and ignoring every attempt to correct your understanding of what I mean, is a pretty sure indicator.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2010)

First off, Neonchameleon, good post overall.



Neonchameleon said:


> Kill the wandering monster table.  Dead.  Kaput.  Finished.  You should never roll to find what monsters there are in a dungeon.  At least not with SoD if you expect forewarning.




The wandering monster table does more than determine what monsters there are in a dungeon.  It allows some of the monsters to move throughout the complex without the GM having to track all of them individually, and it is a prompt to (1) keep the noise down, and (2) keep moving.

I agree that wandering monsters should be tailored to the environment.

In 4e, you may want to consider wandering monsters which are almost all minions, but which can alert and bring out the bigger guns.  That way, you can get the benefits of wandering monsters without facing the problem of extended combat times against secondary threats.  One or two wandering monsters can be "real threats", though, just to keep the players on their toes.



> SoD footprints should normally be obvious.  With the exception of non-confrontational monsters relying on camoflague.  And those are the sort who should let you alone if you let them alone.  And the much rarer possible exception of e.g. Trapdoor Spiders who are IMO far more fun if they _aren't_ SoD.  Desperate scrambles to get the captured PC back are far more interesting than dead PCs.




Agreed.

I prefer that poisons are rarely SoD.  Most poisons should be debilitating, or cause damage over a period of time, thus allowing something to be done.  Most poisons IRL are of that nature.

By the RAW, you couldn't have the scene in _*The Hobbit *_where Bilbo rescues the dwarves from the spiders -- they would have failed their saves and died, rather than being weakened and sickened.  Likewise, Frodo's survival of Shelob's poisoning in _*LotR*_.

I certainly believe that SoD is an appropriate mechanic for some types of monster abilities/game effects.  That does not make it the best mechanic for all monster abilities/game effects (or even all for which it has, in the past, been used).



> Breaking a statue to pieces is hard and annoying.  Laziness matters.  But *none* of the pro SoD people have as far as I rememeber answered the challenge that the Medusa's snakes can't be spotted from range - the damn thing's a gotcha.




The idea that the Medusa's snakes can't be spotted from range is stupid.  That isn't a problem with SoD; that is a problem with the monster description in the RAW (though I'd like the full and exact quote, if anyone has their 1e MM handy).

"SSSoD is broken because I can make an SSSoD monster that prevents you from doing anything between the saves" is a poor argument.  "SoD is broken because this Medusa is badly designed" is an equally poor argument.

If it hasn't been answered before, it is because a single example where X doesn't work is insufficient to demonstrate that X is a mechanic with value.  Conversely, a single example of where X works well demonstrates that X is a mechanic with value.

A thing doesn't need to have value in all situations to have value.  It doesn't even need to have value in most situations.  There are all sorts of specialty tools that my dad has (because he is a very good auto mechanic) that I do not own and, in general, do not need.  But I would be foolish indeed to imagine that they do not have value, or that my own auto mechanic doesn't require them to do valuable work for me.

For example, earlier this year, I was visiting my parents when I had a rear wheel bearing go.  My dad and my older brother -- excellent mechanics both -- were able to replace it for me.  Even had I known what I was doing, I didn't own all the tools required to do that job well.

Likewise, while I might not need or want SoD for a giant spider, that doesn't mean that I want Medusa to take at least three rounds to petrify someone.



> Ecologies were best in the 2e (i.e. non-Gygaxian) era.




They went a little too far for my taste, but I agree overall.



> 3e and 4e in no way killed the sandbox or are otherwise hostile to it.




Killed?  Absolutely not.  Hostile to it?  I beg to differ.  There are many game changes in WotC-D&D that make a sandbox harder to run well than in previous editions.  But that is another topic, which should be forked if you wish to discuss that further. 



> Of _course_ foreshadowing is counterintuitive if you are trying to run a more narrative game.  I mean, foreshadowing is not and has never been a literary device.






For a moment, I thought you were being serious when you wrote that!





> And, for the record, the Wolf In Sheeps Clothing makes no sense at all anywhere there aren't bunnies - it's like disguising yourself as a member of the wrong army to sneak into the camp.  If that's a clue, you're doing something weird.




Context, my friend.

Imagine a game in which the natural world never has a "footprint".  The GM never mentions squirrels, or normal birds, or bunnies.  If a creature appears at all, it appears to attack the PCs.

Into that world comes the WiSC.

If the GM has never mentioned anything remotely resembing a normal animal before, that didn't directly pertain to the PCs in some way -- attacking them, being ridden by them, hauling their gear -- it is unlikely (at best) that the WiSC is going to fool anyone.

Regularly using "footprints" -- for what is normal in the setting, for what creatures are there, for what environmental features exist -- is a key to good GMing.

IMHO.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Aug 31, 2010)

Sigh, I broke one of my own rules.  Never post when grumpy.

I understand what you're saying RC, now, please, try to understand a few things.

1.  I completely disagree with your basic assumption in that knowledge is "very very often" in the hands of the players.  While it might be true sometimes, I think that "very, very often" is actually closer to "very, very rarely".  

2.  I've repeatedly stated that your approach will work.  I stated above that there were basically three options here - ignore the problem, signpost the problem, or change the mechanics and take the problem away.  You're the only one trying to convince anyone that the other options do not exist.

3.  Your examples are becoming increasingly ludicrous.  In your game, I can go to a sage or two and discover specific spells in a wizard's spellbook?  Really?  Spend some gold and I get to read the table of contents on Mordenkainen's spellbook?  I don't think so.  I really don't believe any DM would actually allow this in a game.  (watch, now someone will pop up to say they've done it.   )

4.  We've been around on this issue more than once and we're just talking past each other. I understand what you're saying.  I just don't think you do.   I believe your basic assumptions about game play are entirely faulty and beyond any reasonable stretch of believability.  In other words, I think you've constructed this imaginary game table that in no way actually looks like a real game table, in order to "prove" yourself right.  Instead of taking a more realistic view of what game play looks like, you have this table where information flow is unrealistically high.  So, yes, I think your model is a very bad idea. But, then again, I could be wrong.  IF the players are in possession of the facts, and IF you signpost as hard as you are claiming (the players will have information available very, very often), then your method would certainly work.  

It's not something I want to do, but, hey, if it works for you, go to it.

-------------------

Ok, that's enough from me.  I'm bowing out and I've said my piece.  Please, STOP referring to me.  It's pretty obvious that there are others who have come to the same (or similar) conclusions that I have, so, argue with them.  Leave me out of it and stop complaining that I've somehow skewed people's views of your point.  Just please, stop referring to me in this thread.

Thank you.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I understand what you're saying RC




Do you?



> I completely disagree with your basic assumption in that knowledge is "very very often" in the hands of the players.




I guess not.  This is not a basic assumption I am making.

*Pursuit of knowledge* is in the hands of the players.  Very, very often *in a well-run game *that pursuit _*has the potential *_to bear fruit.

I made no claim as to how many games out there are what I would consider "well-run".  IME, though (two countried, several American states), I would say that the above is true for the majority of games I have been involved in.

I don't think much of the games where it has not been true.



> You're the only one trying to convince anyone that the other options do not exist.




Again, I guess you don't understand what I am saying.



> In your game, I can go to a sage or two and discover specific spells in a wizard's spellbook?  Really?  Spend some gold and I get to read the table of contents on Mordenkainen's spellbook?  I don't think so.




I suggest that you examine the 1e DMG section on hiring spies, as well as the 1e DMG section on hiring sages.  What you are asking for is an "exacting" question in the sage material.  It might take a long time to gain the information sought, and it might cost a lot of gold, but it is at least potentially do-able.

A mage who leads combat with _finger of death _will certainly be known to do so.  Indeed, that mage probably wants that to be known, so as to convince others not to attack him.  A mage who wants to avoid others knowing that he has a SoD spell is unlikely to use it in the first round of combat -- he will reserve it for when things get dire.

Certainly, powerful spellcasters will take pains to keep others from knowing what their exact abilities are.  Other powerful spellcasters will take pains to know.  When the PCs start asking around about Mordenkainen's spellbook, they are likely to attract the attention of both.

EDIT:  Or you could just cast low-level divination spells over a few game-days time, going down the spell list, and ask if your target wizard has each one.  It won't help you with newly-invented spells, but it will certainly allow you to check on any specific SoD spells you are concerned about.



> I really don't believe any DM would actually allow this in a game.




Whyever not?



> I understand what you're saying.




If you do, you are certainly not responding to it, and your statements of what I mean are malicious fabrications.  Probabably better to assume that you do not, eh?  



RC


EDIT: 



> Leave me out of it and stop complaining that I've somehow skewed people's views of your point. Just please, stop referring to me in this thread.




Nice try to tell me what I think, and have the last word about what I think, too!  Brazen, sir, and I would XP you for the sheer brass if I could!


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 31, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Now, if everything you were saying was about "the party" rather than "me" all the time then I could get behind it at least somewhat; because the party *is* the key ingredient. The party, as a whole.




I think you're still missing the point. The desire isn't for him to be the _sole_ protagonist in the game. The goal is simply to be one. That doesn't mean he's the only figure in the story, it is that he wants to have personal investment in it. Ideally, _all _characters should. 

Sure, you could make up a plot that was about the party as a whole, I suppose. But I've also seen others where most characters are drawn into the plot in different ways. You've got one guy who is there to avenge his father's death, another who is there to rescue his lost love, etc. 

Is it really 'selfish' to want a plot that one has a personal connection to? 

I mean, I don't expect it of all my DMs, but some of the most successful games I've seen have involved trying to create those connections and provide a level of personal investment in the plot. It's not the only style of gaming, certainly. But is it really wrong or selfish to prefer it?


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 31, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I am looking forward to finding out how you drew that conclusion.






> I am not aware of a single instance in any game I have ever played, as player or GM, even under the crappiest GMs I have ever known, where a player's decisions didn't have an impact on the game, nor any game where, at times, a single roll did not decide everything. This has been brought up in previous discussions, and in all cases it has been demonstrated that player choices led to the fateful die being cast.






> But, again, if there is ever a single roll _*disconnected from everything else*_ you've already got bigger problems than SoD. I've never seen it happen. I've never seen a "Bodak in the window" scenario play out where the only choices involved where whether or not to play a rogue, go on the adventure, or be the party scout.
> 
> I'm not saying it doesn't happen. But, if it did happen to you, the GM involved was (IMHO) at fault. Sorry, but that is (again, IMHO) not good GMing!






> What do you think makes a better game:
> 
> 1. You encounter Some Awful Creature.
> 
> ...




These quotes, and others like them, seemed very much to be saying that PCs were always given warning signs of encounters, or at the very least were always making _informed_ decisions that lead to whatever their fate may be.

Again, my bad if that isn't what you intended, but these absolutely made it sound like having even the possibility of the PCs entering an encounter uninformed was "bad DMing". 



Raven Crowking said:


> Specific examples aside, because they could be argued back and forth until the InterWeb crashes down around us




Just as a note, this is part of my point. You can come up with scenarios in which a creature's footprint is obvious. I can come up with scenarios in which it isn't. But I'm not trying to prove that your examples aren't reasonable - I'm just trying to prove that _both scenarios exist_. 



Raven Crowking said:


> would you or would you not agree that, _*often*_ some clue is available (even if not discovered, or not properly understood)? What I mean here is that, although some times, what is most reasonable is that the footprints _will_ be impossible or nigh-impossible, that "impossible or nigh-impossible" itself is a corner-case?




Honestly, no, I don't agree. I think that in _most _situations, the signs of a creature's presence will exist but not be easy to find unless a party is really good at their job or is lucky enough to glance in the right place. Some of the time the signs will be quite obvious. Some of the times the signs will be almost impossible to find. 

The possibility will often be there, but in most scenarios that I've seen in adventures, comes down more to chance than anything else - do the players happen to have the right skills? Do they look in the right place? 

Now, you can tie those elements into player ability - a group should make sure it has someone knowledgeable in every field, and that goes out of its way to search everything foe clues (and going a step further, has all the right magic items and divination spells to learn even more.) And maybe that is part of the old school field that I'm not getting, that there is a level of player skill to making sure they aren't taken unaware by an encounter. 

But I don't think that level of behavior is a reasonable expectation for a game. And more than that, the issue at hand remains Save or Die - if a group happens to miss a clue and run into a scary giant, they might take one or two bad hits and then make an informed decision to run. If they turn the corner and spot a Bodak, half the party could be dead before they've been given that option. 

Again, it's all about being able to make informed decisions to determine your character's fate. Your argument has been that those decisions come up before combat ever starts, and sometimes that is true. But I think there are plenty of times when you aren't likely to know what you are fighting, and not simply as the result of a world lacking consistency or realism or a bad DM. 



Raven Crowking said:


> Both your and Hussar's examples seem to come from 3.x, and I am certainly willing to agree that many changes in 3.x were not for the better. Indeed, the more I examine WotC-D&D, the more I conclude that the designers don't really understand Gygaxian D&D.




I'll readily admit that my positions are largely informed on my own experiences, which have only been from 2nd Ed and 3rd Edition... but it was actually my impression that Gygaxian D&D was even more about surprise encounters and dungeons filled with random monsters whose presence wasn't particularly obvious from the local ecology. 

In any case, I don't think the discussion at hand is particularly tied to edition. I'll maintain that regardless of edition, I don't think that the _default _level of knowledge for PCs is to typically know exactly what they are fighting and what it is capable of. 



Raven Crowking said:


> > Also, I mean to apologize for muddying the waters with the issue being about "PCs being at fault", since that wasn't specifically your point in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Er, just to clarify - I hadn't meant to ever present it as an interpretation of your point at all. It was a point brought up by a number of other posters that seemed connected to this discussion (hence why I wanted to address it), but I realized was largely just drawing things off focus since it hadn't been part of your own argument at all. 



Raven Crowking said:


> Likewise, every SoD (unless the game begins with a bodak jumping out of the closet) has a number of "moves" or "rolls" prior to the final die-rolling moment. This is true whether or not "every monster has a distinct footprint which the PCs could respond to".
> 
> Entering Dungeon Level 7, where you know CR 7 creatures are likely to lurk, is something that the players can react to, whether or not they know specifically which creatures they will encounter.
> 
> ...




There are basically two elements of your argument that I disagree with. 

One, as we've been discussing, that a consistent game environment results in the majority of encounters being easily predictable by the PCs. I just don't agree that is the case. Some encounters being easily predictable, sure. Most... might have the potential, but usually only if the PCs happen to be lucky (either in having the right skill, looking in the right place) or have really exceptional knowledge-gathering capabilities (super divination spells or other info-gathering tricks). 

Secondly... the reason SSSoD, to me, is acceptable is because that final save isn't isolated. It is the result of informed decisions that were made with full knowledge that death was approaching. 

Again: 

Scenario One. I begin fighting a Basilisk and start to turn to stone. I make decisions about whether to try and heal myself or win the fight. After several rounds, I end up petrified. I still feel like I was able to participate in the combat and help decide my own fate. 

Scenario Two. I enter level 7 of a dungeon. I know that there could be Bodaks here, just like there could be any of a thousand other level 7 monsters. Our DM has carefully plotted out the dungeon - he knows in which rooms the Bodak leaves the corpses of its prey, he knows what hallways it prowls for more prey (and when), he knows which hobgoblins might offer rumors of a 'death watcher' in exchange for their lives. So we've got our consistent dungeon with various possible clues. 

Our group enters the first intersection. We hear the sounds of rowdy hobgoblins to the left... we decide we don't want to dive into a fight until we learn more, so we go right. We find another intersection, and our rogue decides to spend some time searching for traps before we go further. While he does so, the DM notes we are in the patrol path of the Bodak - it turns a corner, we see it, combat starts, and I die before our Cleric can point out what it is. 

I don't see this as particularly unlikely. Yes, there are dozens of branching points of decisions here. Maybe a third of them lead to use learning about the Bodak in advance, maybe a third of them result in us fighting it without any warning, maybe a third allow us to avoid it entirely. 

But most of those decisions are uninformed. I know that I can go fight some hobgoblins or keep exploring on my own; I don't know that by fighting the hobgoblins I will learn the nature of a specific death gazing undead in the dungeon. 

Whereas when I am being turned to stone by a Basilisk, I know, in general, what is happening and what the consequences of my actions might be. I get to participate in the fight before petrification overcomes me. 

That's why the SSSoD is acceptable, to me, while the SoD is not. 

And the problem with the SoD is not the DMing style, for not having warning signs of the Bodak in the very first room we enter. It isn't the fault of the party for going down the wrong path or missing the right clues. The problem is with having a mechanic that instantly kills a character before any action can be taken on behalf of that character. 

I'm not saying this problem is for everyone. But I am saying that my personal issues with it are, yes, absolutely rooted in the mechanic itself!


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 31, 2010)

Nagol said:


> Primarily, because stories around "the protagonist" typically are set where the character is at the near pinnacle of his power. The narrative has shifted from "growing into power" to "being the one to", "use power responsibly", "correct wrongs", or "avert the calamity".




I absolutely disagree with this. How many stories are there about characters that are still growing, developing, etc? The majority of them, I expect. Yet the character still remains the protagonist and is deeply tied to the story without having to be the most powerful figure in the world. 

Campaign One: Four PCs gather in a tavern, hear about a lich's tower, and go to explore it. They might all have rich and detailed backstories, but none of them have any specific ties to the Lich. Or perhaps the mayor of the town comes to them, revealing the Lich's evil plan to conquer the region, and they are sent to stop him. 

Campaign Two: Jack was a farmer, until his crops withered and died from the dark magic coming downstream from the Lich's tower. He picks up his father's sword and goes to do something about it, meeting up with Sally the Rogue (whose sister went to steal something from the Lich and never returned), Eric the Cleric (prophesied to defeat this evil since he was a child), and Sam the mysterious wizard (who hasn't revealed that the Lich was once his mentor, before turning to dark ways.) 

Both of these campaigns can be perfectly fun, and are perfectly legitimate styles of play. But in the second, the story is more about the characters than the Lich. It isn't about them seeking him out and becoming heroes by proving themselves against the bad guys of the setting, it is about them exploring their own personal stories as they connect to the plot of the game.


----------



## Nagol (Aug 31, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I absolutely disagree with this. How many stories are there about characters that are still growing, developing, etc? The majority of them, I expect. Yet the character still remains the protagonist and is deeply tied to the story without having to be the most powerful figure in the world.
> 
> Campaign One: Four PCs gather in a tavern, hear about a lich's tower, and go to explore it. They might all have rich and detailed backstories, but none of them have any specific ties to the Lich. Or perhaps the mayor of the town comes to them, revealing the Lich's evil plan to conquer the region, and they are sent to stop him.
> 
> ...




I didn’t say D&D couldn’t do it, merely that other systems do it better.
“The protagonist” usually isn’t the most powerful figure in the world.  His power level is simply at a particular point and his place (social place, not necessarily geographic) in the world is defined.  The narrative around "the protagonist" revolves around his place in the world.

The default conceit for D&D beginning adventurers is well, they're beginning.  The (human) characters are 14-20 years old and are just coming into adulthood (Wizards are typically a few years older due to the ‘intense study’ required that others can pick up in the field in a matter of days, but that’s another story). 

Joe the farmer hasn’t been one for more than a year (no Commoner levels, no age for it, and limited skill).  Sally’s sister may have struck out to steal from the lich, but Sally hasn’t done anything herself.  Eric may have a prophesy behind him, but hasn’t *done anything*.  Sam wasn’t being mentored by someone who turned dark unless that turning happened since graduation last week (in which case Sally’s sister was trying to steal from a human Wizard, but whatever).

The characters are exploring to discover their place in the world.  will Eric succeed or was it a false prophecy?

Other game systems offer a much wider default beginning character (Traveler, for instance ranges from 15 to about 50 years old with commensurate life experience).  Other games systems have better mechanical representation of diverse backgrounds (owning land, having powerful family members, favours owed and owing, social standing, or belonging to a religious order that wants to support the success of your prophecy, etc.)

_Can_ you do this in D&D? Sure.  Do other games offer a better representation? Absolutely.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 31, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> If we go back to 1e, then encounter range doesn't matter because over 30 feet, the party cannot tell that the creature is a medusa



Says what rule, where?



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> There are any number of ways you can hide the footprint of a creature.



It's trivial for you to set up even a "_don't_ save, just die" certain death situation if that's what you want. So, go ahead and knock yourself out as long as you can find players to put up with that. That is *no argument at all* against the rest of us running what _we_ consider fun games!



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> The only way your limitation of SoD works, is if the footprint is detectable EVERY SINGLE TIME.



Lets's be clear: You really mean IS DETECTED every single time. ( "Single time" here means what YOU choose for it to mean in YOUR game). It cannot be a game, but must instead be an entitlement.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Because if it's not, then it becomes a surprise encounter...



My ignorance of the Toledo address of a psychopathic hermit does not require me to have any encounter with him at all. First, I would need some reason to be in Toledo!

"An unexpected confrontation" is in fact the definition of "encounter" in the DMG glossary. Further, surprise -- in the technical sense, which allows the advantaged side free attacks -- is a standard part of the game.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> ...and SoD typically just means die for at least one character.



That's because YOU arbitrarily don't allow tactics that prevent it. That, again, is no argument against the rest of us enjoying the game of D&D as millions have known it.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 31, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> First off, Neonchameleon, good post overall.




I think we broadly agree in understanding - we just want to play very different games 



> The wandering monster table does more than determine what monsters there are in a dungeon. It allows some of the monsters to move throughout the complex without the GM having to track all of them individually, and it is a prompt to (1) keep the noise down, and (2) keep moving.
> 
> I agree that wandering monsters should be tailored to the environment.




Hence the caveat I put in - no SoD monsters on the Wandering Monster Table.   I believe Tiamat to have been on the 1e DMG tables.  (Which is another reason I really don't want to return to Gygaxian approaches).



> In 4e, you may want to consider wandering monsters which are almost all minions, but which can alert and bring out the bigger guns. That way, you can get the benefits of wandering monsters without facing the problem of extended combat times against secondary threats. One or two wandering monsters can be "real threats", though, just to keep the players on their toes.




Nice, thanks.  If I ever have the desire to run a dungeon in 4e I'll use that.  (4e sucks at classic dungeoncrawling IMO.  On the other hand it does pretty well at dungeon exploration).



> By the RAW, you couldn't have the scene in _*The Hobbit *_where Bilbo rescues the dwarves from the spiders -- they would have failed their saves and died, rather than being weakened and sickened. Likewise, Frodo's survival of Shelob's poisoning in _*LotR*_.




4e condition track for poisons all the way!  If I say the final result of a poison is a coma rather than death then it damn well is a coma rather than death - even in the RAW.



> I certainly believe that SoD is an appropriate mechanic for some types of monster abilities/game effects. That does not make it the best mechanic for all monster abilities/game effects (or even all for which it has, in the past, been used).




The thing is that these times are so rare that it should be the exception in exception based design.  I have no objection to Orcus having the Wand of Orcus which reduces anyone to 0hp (which does weird things in a monster vs monster fight), a Catoblepas turning death saves from SSSoD to SoD, or even The Gorgon Medusa having a SoD stony glare.  What I mind is a medusa having a SoD stony glare and almost all random wizards above a certain level packing any of a number of SoD choices.

SoD needs to be rare, powerful, and feared.  As such it shouldn't be a core mechanic at all even if certain name-level characters do have SoD.



> "SSSoD is broken because I can make an SSSoD monster that prevents you from doing anything between the saves" is a poor argument. "SoD is broken because this Medusa is badly designed" is an equally poor argument.




The issue is a matter of work.  If the monster is spending all their time preventing the PC doing things then it's tying up the monster as well as the PC.  If the monster is negligently anhilliating PCs that's bad.



> If it hasn't been answered before, it is because a single example where X doesn't work is insufficient to demonstrate that X is a mechanic with value. Conversely, a single example of where X works well demonstrates that X is a mechanic with value.




Depends what you mean by "a mechanic with value" - any extra mechanic at any point bloats the system leading to negative value because it makes the whole thing larger, buliker, and harder to understand.  (Again, this is the point of Exception Based Design - the negative value is massively reduced).



> Likewise, while I might not need or want SoD for a giant spider, that doesn't mean that I want Medusa to take at least three rounds to petrify someone.




So Medusa should be the exception, not the spider 



> Killed? Absolutely not. Hostile to it? I beg to differ. There are many game changes in WotC-D&D that make a sandbox harder to run well than in previous editions. But that is another topic, which should be forked if you wish to discuss that further.




I just might 



> For a moment, I thought you were being serious when you wrote that!




The first time I re-read that I thought that although it was over the top by my standards, _someone_ was going to take me seriously


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 31, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:
			
		

> He's a damn Wizard! He probably has 30 spells in his spell book at a minimum. That makes him too flexible to prepare against given that he can change his entire loadout on a day to day basis - unless he has a reputation for signature spells.



Next topic: *Wizards, Yea or Nay?*

In 1st ed. AD&D, _prismatic spray_ is a 7th-level illusionist spell, castable (other than from a scroll, wand, etc.) only by a character of at least 14th level. To replace the full allotment of spells requires 10 hours of rest and 17 hours of memorization: a total of 27 hours. Depending on the world in question, a day might be but 24 hours and change.

(In 2e, the per-spell component is only 2/3, so it might take about 21 hours.)

In 3e, a wizard can learn the spell a level earlier. (The wizard gets automatic free picks from 3e's full corpus of former illusionist _and_ magic-user spells.) A 13th-level 3e wizard can cast 26 spells, or 28 at 14th, versus only 22 for the AD&D illusionist.

(The assessment of power is complicated by the 3e caster having one less spell per low spell level and one more per high spell level. There are also the "0-level" spell slots in 3e, the options for which include both former 1st-level spells and cantrips.)

Also, the 3e wizard does indeed get to do that _each and every day_.

3e might have been clearer if fighters had been renamed "grogs".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2010)

> These quotes, and others like them, seemed very much to be saying that PCs were always given warning signs of encounters, or at the very least were always making informed decisions that lead to whatever their fate may be.




Sorry, but you are adding significant material to what is presented in order to draw that conclusion.

I am not aware of a single instance in any game I have ever played, as player or GM, even under the crappiest GMs I have ever known, where a player's decisions didn't have an impact on the game, nor any game where, at times, a single roll did not decide everything. This has been brought up in previous discussions, and in all cases it has been demonstrated that player choices led to the fateful die being cast.​
How, exactly, does this mean that PCs were always given warning signs of encounters?  It is a specific answer to the idea that “BAM!  The PC is dead without having gotten to make any decisions!”  That is clearly wrong.  Unless the monster jumps out of the closet at the start of the game, the PC got to make decisions.

Looking for warning signs is a decision.  Not looking for warning signs is, equally, a decision.  You do not need to be _*given*_ warning signs to make a decision.  Heading out into the blue and hoping for the best may be a _*bad*_ decision, but it is a decision.

But, again, if there is ever a single roll *disconnected from everything else* you've already got bigger problems than SoD. I've never seen it happen. I've never seen a "Bodak in the window" scenario play out where the only choices involved where whether or not to play a rogue, go on the adventure, or be the party scout. 


I'm not saying it doesn't happen. But, if it did happen to you, the GM involved was (IMHO) at fault. Sorry, but that is (again, IMHO) not good GMing!​
Same response as above applies.  The argument that SoD is bad because the players make no decisions is a poor argument, at best.  As has been pointed out by others in this thread, the circumstances of the bodak in the window probably should not have resulted in the rogue’s death as described.  IMHO, that was a case of classically bad GMing.

And it isn’t classically bad GMing because the “PCs entering an encounter uninformed” – it is classically bad GMing because the GM ignores the ameliorating efforts of the PCs in order to create a desired outcome.  

The PC rogue sneaks up to the cabin and peers in the window.  He does so successfully, which rather indicates that the inhabitant(s) are not looking at him.  But, rather than treat the encounter as one in which the PC gains information (which he undertook, please note, significant risk to gain), the GM decides that the bodak’s gaze attack applies.

This is the same sort of bad GMing involved with efforts to frustrate player attempts to acquire knowledge because it will “spoil the surprise” or otherwise change how the GM expects things to work out.  If the game includes low-level divination spells, and these spells can be used to learn what spells are in an enemy wizard’s spellbook, not letting the attempt work “just because” is bad GMing.

IMHO.  YMMV.

I mean, look at all the background text in many modules.  I have heard people – some of them in this thread – complain that there is “no way” the players could learn that background information.  Then, in this thread, the same folks complain that they, effectively, shouldn’t be giving the players information.  

Why not allow the PCs to try to find out what’s in Elmonster’s spellbook?  Why is it trite to allow natural clues as to what lives around the Ruins of Ruinous Runes?

Is doing so going to ruin your narrative?

What do you think makes a better game:


1. You encounter Some Awful Creature.


2. You hear about Some Awful Creature, come across a carcass of its kill (which demonstrates that it could take down a manticore in flight, and seems to have some sort of acid attack), then spy the creature on the wing, and _*only then*_ have to deal with it to meet some goal.


I am firmly on the side of (2). You may call it "bubble wrapping every encounter"; I call it "creating anticipation, fear, and dread".​
Again, how does “The opportunity to anticipate encounters is more effective than simply plopping a monster in front of the PCs” become “PCs were always given warning signs of encounters”?

As for “at the very least were always making _informed_ decisions that lead to whatever their fate may be” you seem to miss the idea, no matter how often repeated, that _*it is the player’s responsibility to ensure their PCs are informed*_.  The players, not the GM, determine when the PCs have enough information to act.  

The GM’s obligation is to make sure that doing so is possible if pursued in a manner consistent with the campaign milieu.  Generally speaking, it is better for the GM to allow the players to have more information rather than less, because context.




> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No one is arguing that both scenarios do not, AFAICT.



> I think that in _most_ situations, the signs of a creature's presence will exist but not be easy to find unless a party is really good at their job or is lucky enough to glance in the right place. Some of the time the signs will be quite obvious. Some of the times the signs will be almost impossible to find.




Fair enough.  But if you agree that “The possibility will often be there” that is close enough to my point that we can simply agree to disagree.  Or maybe my players are just really good at their jobs, and have some idea where signs are likely to be found.

Can we use this as an example of how I use footprints?  It is a pbp, appearing effectively in “real time”, and is old enough that I cannot be accused of rigging the results (unless you think I have super-genius intelligence and predicted the need to do so long ago, anyway!   ):  http://www.enworld.org/forum/playing-game/112911-lakelands-six-adventure.html



> do the players happen to have the right skills? Do they look in the right place?




I was going to ask how these are a matter of luck, but you already answered my question:



> Now, you can tie those elements into player ability





Again, if you are at all unclear on the concept, Gygax’s advice in the 1e PHB really cannot be beat.




> if a group happens to miss a clue and run into a scary giant, they might take one or two bad hits and then make an informed decision to run. If they turn the corner and spot a Bodak, half the party could be dead before they've been given that option.




If they run into a giant, half the party could be dead before they’ve been given that option.



> Again, it's all about being able to make informed decisions to determine your character's fate. Your argument has been that those decisions come up before combat ever starts, and sometimes that is true. But I think there are plenty of times when you aren't likely to know what you are fighting, and not simply as the result of a world lacking consistency or realism or a bad DM.




Agreed that it's all about being able to make informed decisions to determine your character's fate, and, yes, those decisions come up before combat ever starts.  Disagree that this is only “sometimes true” – the only exception being the GM starting a game with “roll for initiative” or something like that.  Agreed that there are plenty of times when you aren't likely to know what you are fighting, and that this is not necessarily simply the result of a world lacking consistency or a bad GM. 

Sometimes it is because the players thought they had enough information to go on (and were wrong).  Sometimes it is simply bad luck.

But, again, saying “that there are plenty of times when you aren't likely to know what you are fighting” again ignores an important concept – the larger the creature’s environmental impact, the larger its footprint.  I may not be certain about the pine martin, but I would know a moose print, a deer print, or a bear’s track.

Likewise, Bilbo & Company certainly knew about the dragon and the goblins, but didn’t know about the spiders setting out (local impact), although within that location the footprint became obvious.  The footprint of the deer was less obvious than the footprint of the black squirrels, because there were more black squirrels than deer.

Is this actually hard to grasp?


> One, as we've been discussing, that a consistent game environment results in the majority of encounters being easily predictable by the PCs.





“Potentially predictable” =/= “easily predictable”.


If this is a primary objection to my argument, it is an (unintentional) strawman.


IME, with many, many players over many years and in many places, the vast majority of players do not need “really exceptional knowledge-gathering capabilities (super divination spells or other info-gathering tricks)” in order to perform necessary information gathering well.




> Secondly... the reason SSSoD, to me, is acceptable is because that final save isn't isolated. It is the result of informed decisions that were made with full knowledge that death was approaching.





Cool.  But, again, that isn’t an argument that SoD is bad; it is an argument that _*using SoD in certain ways*_ is bad.


That said, though, I don’t find your Scenario Two as consistent as you do.  Your bodak is way too close to the hobgoblins for my comfort.  Nor are there any other indicators present apart from what the hobgoblins know.  Also, if the bodak is that close to the level entrance, with nothing preventing it’s going to Level 6, why haven’t the PCs heard anything about it before now?


Nonetheless, if we accept it at face value, yes, you are dead.  


There are dozens of branching points of decisions here.  But if most of those decisions are uninformed, how much responsibility do you accept for that as a player?  I mean, didn’t you make a decision to go down to Level Seven, informed by the knowledge that you still hadn’t learned anything about what’s down there?



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> I think we broadly agree in understanding - we just want to play very different games




Could well be.  



> Hence the caveat I put in - no SoD monsters on the Wandering Monster Table.




If a basilisk is wandering around the ruins, it is on the WMT in my game.  Of course, potential indicators are also all around the ruins as well.  

I believe that the 1e WMT were intended, at least in part, to give a spur to DMs trying to figure out what to put on each level.  Taken as a whole, though, the Gygaxian approach to monster and treasure placement is not to simply roll on tables.  There is an excellent description of the approach in the 1e DMG, and you do it no justice by imagining that the WMT was the end (or even necessarily the beginning) of that approach.

One of the ideas in 1e that has fallen by the wayside in later editions is that some monsters simply occur far less frequently than others.  "A" medusa doesn't have to be "the" medusa of myth, but it is pretty unlikely that a character is going to encounter a plethora of medusae if the DM is populating his milieu following the RAW.

I love reading the 1e DMG.  I really, really love Gary's prose.  But I also agree that there were things that were not explained well enough in the books, because they were essentially written for an audience that already knew (or was imagined to know) the basic gist of what Gary was saying.

But the major elements in 1e are intended to support each other, and to support a particular style of play.  They do this remarkably well, IMHO.  With the advent of 2e, and then even more so with 3e, though, these elements were either removed or changed without the ramifications being fully understood.  

(Again, IMHO.  And working on an SRD-based game designed to play more like certain older games, while taking advantage of later developments I like, I have spent many moons now -- far longer than I thought I would be spending -- determining through playtest and error exactly how these things work together.  Game design makes you appreciate game design, and game revision helps you to see where previous game revisers failed.)



> Depends what you mean by "a mechanic with value" - any extra mechanic at any point bloats the system leading to negative value because it makes the whole thing larger, buliker, and harder to understand.  (Again, this is the point of Exception Based Design - the negative value is massively reduced).




I think that many game situations should be exception-based, personally.  In Encounter Area A there is a Free Reaction Reflex save DC 10 to avoid tripping on a loose step.  It applies nowhere else, and I don't have to use the same DC for the poor architecture of another staircase somewhere else.

Of course, this might be a result of doing setting design in 3e, where everything seemed to have a set vaule that one should look up (shudder).



> I just might




And, when you do, I'll remind you that you said "4e sucks at classic dungeoncrawling".  Because, IMHO, many of the reasons that this is so are the same reasons why it is less sandbox-friendly than, say, 1e.  _*But*_ for all of 3e's "back to the dungeon!" I'll certainly admit that 4e has some advantages over 3e for dungeon exploration.



RC


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 31, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:
			
		

> But you assume didn't like is the same as didn't understand.



I don't think so. I think he assumes that a mismatch between proclaimed ends and what actually results indicates a lack of understanding of the means that one has screwed around with and screwed up.

Tunnels and Trolls disagreed. RuneQuest disagreed. 4e disagreed. 3e was incoherent.



> (I'd love to play Arnesonian D&D on the other hand)



Arnesonian D&D had instant death critical hits. It also had a DM whose whim was the sole determinant of what rules would apply when. It also had a first-level dungeon in which 3 of 7 keyed encounters were with multiple spiders (presumably poisonous) and 1 of 3 wandering monsters was a wraith.

A possibility of a wraith on the first level was standard D&D, but Arneson took the randomness of his encounters further.

"Thus there was a chance that any type of creature could be found on any given Dungeon Level." (FFC, p. 45)

An _unguarded_ treasure on the second level was "Jewels, Ring of Protection, Spell Storing, Spell Turning".

The eighth level (one of the older ones) featured two balrogs(!!), a giant worm and a giant insect, their neighbors being handfuls (1-10 figures each) of lycanthropes, trolls, and ...goblins.

Basically, Arnesonian D&D seems to me like the Gygaxian, only with "random death" (and random treasure!) dials turned way up. It looks, I think, similar to the Wardian and Hargravian games.

Also, I really did not get the impression that Dave was more concerned than Gary about naturalistic ecology -- just the opposite, really. (Also one of his favorite "traps", really a trick, was just a big time waster, IIRC, although I don't remember details.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> I don't think so. I think he assumes that a mismatch between proclaimed ends and what actually results indicates a lack of understanding of the means that one has screwed around with and screwed up.
> 
> Tunnels and Trolls disagreed. RuneQuest disagreed. 4e disagreed. 3e was incoherent.




Exactly.

"You must spread XP around yadda yadda yadda."


RC


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 31, 2010)

Ok, I wanted to address this point somewhat directly. I beleive Planesailing brought it up originally - the idea that the Bodak example from earlier (Rogue sneaks up to a house, sees a Bodak, dies) shouldn't work because, if the Rogue is hidden, he obviously can't meet the Bodak's gaze. 

And, I'm sorry, I just don't think there is any merit to that. At least, not in terms of the actual rules. If someone wants to house rule that, feel free, I get the sense behind it, but I don't think the rules support it in any way, and the second people are justifying their arguments by house rules, the issues returns to the system, not the DM. 



Raven Crowking said:


> As has been pointed out by others in this thread, the circumstances of the bodak in the window probably should not have resulted in the rogue’s death as described. IMHO, that was a case of classically bad GMing.
> 
> ...
> 
> The PC rogue sneaks up to the cabin and peers in the window. He does so successfully, which rather indicates that the inhabitant(s) are not looking at him. But, rather than treat the encounter as one in which the PC gains information (which he undertook, please note, significant risk to gain), the GM decides that the bodak’s gaze attack applies.




I'm sorry, the DM running the rules correctly is not bad DMing. Hiding from a creature does not make you immune to its gaze attacks, period. Note, I'm discussing this from how gaze attacks worked in 3rd Edition (since that is where the encounter happened), so if they were wildly different before that... fair enough. 

Buy if I'm fighting a Bodak, or a Basilisk, or a Medusa, and I spend my turns hiding in the shadows and shooting them, I'm not immune to their gaze attacks. Their gaze attacks involve _me looking at them_. It doesn't matter if they can see _me_ or not. If Perseus is invisible, and standing in front of a Medusa, and meets its gaze, he turns to stone. If a rogue is in the shadows, spying on a Bodak, he's still subject to saving vs death. 

Now, you could argue that there is no guarantee the Bodak is looking in his direction. And there, maybe, you might have a point, and could make up some chance as to whether the Bodak is looking that way or not. Of course, 3rd Edition doesn't work like that - there is no facing. Gaze attacks happen when you are within a certain range and look at the creature - you can only avoid it by looking away entirely or trying to avert your eyes. Those are the rules. 

The idea that if you hide from a creature, this somehow _physically prevents it from looking in your direction_ - I'm sorry, but there's no justification for that. And arguing that running the rules the way they are written is the fault of the DM here, rather than ths system, is absolutely absurd.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 31, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry, but you are adding significant material to what is presented in order to draw that conclusion.




Look, all I can say is that I read those quotes as indicating you expected PCs to always be given warnings of what they would encounter. You don't feel that is what you are saying, that's fine. Nonetheless, that is how it came across, to me. Let's focus on the biggest example, here: 



> You hear about Some Awful Creature, come across a carcass of its kill (which demonstrates that it could take down a manticore in flight, and seems to have some sort of acid attack), then spy the creature on the wing, and _*only then*_ have to deal with it to meet some goal.




You aren't describing having the PCs search for info about a creature. You are describing a scenario in which you, the DM, specifically have: 
1) NPCs tell them about the creature;
2) Them come upon the aftermath of a battle that reveals the attacks it uses;
3) They actively see it and can ID it before they ever have to fight it.

_That is the example you gave_. As, specifically, your style of play, and what you were advocating. As, specifically, one of only two options, the other one being to encounter the creature with no clues at all.

Having presented that, do you really find it hard to beleive that the impression I got was that you were advocating handing PCs complete warnings about every upcoming encounter?? 

You have more recently argued that you are instead advocating leaving various clues that the PCs have the potential to find if they go looking for it. I am willing to accept this as your actual position. But I don't think it was unreasonable on my part to have come to a different interpretation of your view earlier, based on what you actually said. 



Raven Crowking said:


> As for “at the very least were always making _informed_ decisions that lead to whatever their fate may be” you seem to miss the idea, no matter how often repeated, that _*it is the player’s responsibility to ensure their PCs are informed*_. The players, not the GM, determine when the PCs have enough information to act.




I... though that it _hadn't _been your point of view that 'the players were at fault' if they walk into a Save or Die fight without fair warning?

I want to try and confirm this, because I feel like I may be misreading your point again. But are you saying that: 

-If players enter a room with a Save or Die Encounter, either:
-They are responsible for not having found enough information; or
-The DM is responsible for not having provided enough warning signs or made the warnings easy enough to find.

Is this your view? 

Because that may be the sticking point of this discussion. I see a third option - that there could very well be encounters that the PCs do not find or get sufficient warnings to know everything about in advance. That, in fact, the presence of such things seems almost inevitable in any game that actually has an 'internal consistency' - creatures adept at stealth and deception exist. Not every creature's tracks and leavings will inevitably be stumbled across by the PCs. Many creatures are similar enough in nature that the signs of their presence aren't going to reveal their specific identity. 

And in those situations where PCs do enter an encounter without knowledge of what they will be fighting, the fault is not with the players or with the DM. It is an inevitability of the setting and the system. 

Which is perfectly fine. It, in fact, only becomes an issue when SoD enters the picture - and introduces the potential, in those encounters, to die before being able to take any action. 



Raven Crowking said:


> > Just as a note, this is part of my point. You can come up with scenarios in which a creature's footprint is obvious. I can come up with scenarios in which it isn't. But I'm not trying to prove that your examples aren't reasonable - I'm just trying to prove that _both scenarios exist_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That is absolutely what you have been arguing. 

If that isn't, then why have you felt the need, every time a scenario was presented which would have given a reason for PCs to not come across obvious clues or warnings, you've responded either by proclaiming it bad DMing or trying to give 'counter-examples' of similar scenarios with warnings, as though that invalidated the scenarios I had presented? 



> do the players happen to have the right skills? Do they look in the right place?
> 
> _I was going to ask how these are a matter of luck, but you already answered my question:_
> 
> Now, you can tie those elements into player ability




I walk into a dungeon. In one of these rooms are clues about the nature of a monster. The monster itself is found in another room or wandering the corridors. Is it really an issue of player skill if I happen to go down the path that encounters the monster before I find the clues about it?

Or are you suggesting that are clues should be found at the entrance to the dungeon, or the DM should make sure the players find the clues before the monster finds them? At which point I think you are getting away from the claimed goal of consistency, and instead getting into something else entirely. 

After all, if the goal is having a setting in which supporting elements make the monster's presence consistent, isn't it just as likely the PCs will encounter those elements after running into the monster, rather than always having them carefully lined up beforehand? 



Raven Crowking said:


> If they run into a giant, half the party could be dead before they’ve been given that option.




Really? It has been my experience that, if PCs stumble upon a level appropriate encounter, a PC at full health will rarely be slain outright before having a chance to act. Unless SoD is involved. 



Raven Crowking said:


> There are dozens of branching points of decisions here. But if most of those decisions are uninformed, how much responsibility do you accept for that as a player? I mean, didn’t you make a decision to go down to Level Seven, informed by the knowledge that you still hadn’t learned anything about what’s down there?




Again, you are saying that if a PC makes an uninformed decision, it means either the player screwed up by not looking hard enough, or the DM screwed up by not having more clues. 

Which I still find absurd. The idea that on level 6 you have to include detailed information about what's on level 7 just doesn't seem a reasonable requirement for a game to me. I'm not saying _you _can't run a game that way, but I don't think it should be a requirement for anyone else. 

But let me take a step back, one more time, and try to emphasize what I mean by an informed decision. That's where this entire tangent started from. If you respond to nothing else, here is the core of my concern. 

In combat, I know that I am turning to stone. I know that if I choose to try and finish off the Basilisk, it might result in me becoming petrified. I know that if I instead try to fight off the petrification, or get my allies to help me with it, people will be getting more and more injured. 

I have an idea both of what my options are, and what the consequences are depending on what I choose. And at the end of it, regardless of the decision, I have taken a number of actions that have influenced that. That is what I mean by an informed decision, and a chance to act before that single roll that finishes me. 

If I am at the stairs to level 6, and trying to decide whether to descend, that is a decision point. But what do I know? I don't know what creatures are ahead; does this mean there might be clues somewhere on this level? Should I spend time exploring this level further? What if that results in enemies coming back up from below and reinforcing the way? What if it means they notice the havoc and are prepared for my attack? If I go now, maybe I'll take them by surprise? Or maybe I'll find out more clues about them at the bottom of the stairs?

I've got lots of possibilities here. I know that either decision could have good or bad outcomes. But I have no idea as to what those outcomes might be. I can conjecture, but I don't have enough information to make a completely informed decision - even the decision on whether to look for more information is largely uninformed, since I don't know, for sure, whether there is any information behind me to be found!

And more than that, this ia decision the group reaches as a whole. It isn't an action I am taking to influence my own destiny. It is simply proceeding in one direction or another. If I then do encounter a Bodak, that's the point at which I can start making informed decisions - except that, by then, I might be dead. 

Or let's go one step further. Let's say I have found what clues are available on this level, and what they have told me is that there are undead below. Let's say I even consider the possibility that there is a Bodak down there?

How do I respond? Does the party walk forward blindly in case we turn the corner and are confronted by its death gaze? That seems a poor tactical decision. And if we choose wrong, and do run into one, and die because of it? 

I don't feel like I had a real chance to influence my fate. I feel like I had to make a gamble on whether to walk around blindly or not, and apparently chose the wrong answer. 

Or perhaps my other choice was to just... retreat. There might be a Bodak below, so I don't go there. Or I go back to town and hope to hire a high-level cleric. Etc. 

Or maybe smart enough PCs will really have answers - the Gygaxian PC, expecting anything, has a backpack filled with chickens that he carries around (his eyes closed), and if they squawk and die in his hands, he knows he's up against a Bodak. Or he carries around mirrors strapped to 10' poles, and checks around every corner with them and inside every room before entering. 

Which I suppose is one approach. But not the sort of game everyone wants to play. And here's the problem that brings this all back, once again, to SoD - with any other monster ability, these concerns wouldn't be that big a deal. Run into an unfamiliar enemy, and you have a chance to learn from it and adapt, or retreat and return better informed. 

Run into a SoD, and you likely don't get that chance. 

Remember, again, that I'm not saying SoD are a terrible thing useless for all games. This all evolved out of me giving one specific reason I am not a fan of them - I prefer being able to act and respond and influence my fate. 

And in an encounter with SSSoD, or with any other monster capabilities, I feel I have that opportunity. In an encounter with SoD, I don't. And I don't feel that the events leading up to the encounter count - not finding a specific clue the DM left, or having the bad luck to explore the passage with the monster before the passage with the clues, doesn't feel like I influenced my fate or got to take informed actions to help or hinder it. 

And dying as soon as the encounter starts doesn't feel like it was my fault as a player for being unobservant, or the DMs fault for not providing the right clues - it feels like the system's fault, for having the potential for a creature to exist where an encounter starts, and I die before I ever have a chance to act.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 31, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Gaze attacks happen when you are within a certain range and look at the creature - you can only avoid it by looking away entirely or trying to avert your eyes. Those are the rules.




I believe you are in error here - you seem to assume that the gaze is the gaze of the onlooker, when it is clearly the gaze of the creature.

While it is conceivable that a rogue might be hidden and end up looking straight into the creatures eyes, occams razor suggests that if he has correctly hidden, then that is a particularly unlikely result.

To my mind anybody who attempts to hide behind the letter of the rules has very little business being a DM; they lack the flexibility to make the game a good experience for everybody. IMO, YMMV etc.

Regards,


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Ok, I wanted to address this point somewhat directly. I beleive Planesailing brought it up originally - the idea that the Bodak example from earlier (Rogue sneaks up to a house, sees a Bodak, dies) shouldn't work because, if the Rogue is hidden, he obviously can't meet the Bodak's gaze.
> 
> And, I'm sorry, I just don't think there is any merit to that.




Then, at that point, we are in such a serious disconnect, that we probably can't even discuss the SoD issue further.

Tell me, please, in terms of the actual rules, where it specifies that a bodak's gaze attack works even if it is not looking at you, and you'll be on firm ground.  Otherwise, if someone wants to house rule that a bodak's gaze attack works like that, feel free, but I don't think it makes any sense -- and if the rules as written support it in any way, that would be yet another glaring problem that shows the 3e designers were not up to the task.

But I don't believe that this is the case.  I don't think that the 3e rules suggest that monsters somehow attack creatures they are unaware of (although they may have special abilities that are not dependent upon their awareness of you).  I could be wrong, though, as I have been distancing myself from the fiasco that is 3e over the last year or so.

And, I'm sorry, but the DM pointing to the book, and claiming that he is "running the rules correctly" may indeed be bad DMing, if the rules make no sense.  Pointing to the book has never, in any edition, been an excuse for bad DMing.

In the case of 3e, "An opponent can avert his eyes from the creature’s face, looking at the creature’s body, watching its shadow, or tracking the creature in a reflective surface. Each round, the opponent has a 50% chance of not having to make a saving throw.....An opponent can shut his eyes, turn his back on the creature, or wear a blindfold.  In these cases, the opponent does not need to make a saving throw.....If visibility is limited (by dim lighting, a fog, or the like) so that it results in concealment, there is a percentage chance equal to the normal miss chance for that degree of concealment that a character won’t need to make a saving throw in a given round. This chance is not cumulative with the chance for averting your eyes, but is rolled separately."

Your susceptibility to a gaze attack is not simply _you looking at them_.  It is _you looking at their face_, so it does indeed matter if they _*can*_ see you or not.  You are completely immune to the gaze attack of a creature whose face you cannot see.  If the Medusa were invisible, or had her back turned, Perseus is immune, even if she is standing in front of him.  

As you say, if Perseus *meets its gaze*, he turns to stone. 



> Now, you could argue that there is no guarantee the Bodak is looking in his direction. And there, maybe, you might have a point, and could make up some chance as to whether the Bodak is looking that way or not. Of course, 3rd Edition doesn't work like that - there is no facing.




Actually, 3rd Edition does work like that:  "An opponent can...turn his back on the creature...."  An opponent can turn his back on a creature -- there is facing, even if it is not generally used.  And it is not true that "you can only avoid it by looking away entirely or trying to avert your eyes" -- you can avoid it by not looking at the *creature's face*. 

*Those are the rules.*



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Look, all I can say is that I read those quotes as indicating you expected PCs to always be given warnings of what they would encounter. You don't feel that is what you are saying, that's fine. Nonetheless, that is how it came across, to me.




Gotcha.  But you seemingly ignored every correction, and still continue to do so AFAICT.  That passes beyond "You don't feel that is what you are saying, that's fine. Nonetheless, that is how it came across, to me." and into something else.  What, exactly, I am not sure, but it is no longer simply misreading.

And, as I said, in order to draw the conclusions you are drawing, you are adding material to what I am saying.  I tend to call this "reader bias".  I.e., the reader says "If I wrote X, I would mean Y" because the reader has a bias of associations related to X and Y.

Rather than give the best possible reading, some readers seem insistent that X means Y no matter how the writer might attempt to correct that misapprension.



> You aren't describing having the PCs search for info about a creature. You are describing a scenario in which you, the DM, specifically have:
> 1) NPCs tell them about the creature;
> 2) Them come upon the aftermath of a battle that reveals the attacks it uses;
> 3) They actively see it and can ID it before they ever have to fight it.
> ...




Okay, now go back and read the post I wrote that in, and the post it was in response to.

I didn't say that players should be handed everything on a plate.  I said that, rather than footprinting being trite, or cliched, or boring, it is more effective for the players to actually worry about things they are going to encounter (or even suspect they are going to encounter).

I.e., the monster that is built up prior to the encounter is, generally speaking, more effective than the monster that is not.

I defend this as true.

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that every monster will be built up in actual play.  Indeed, since I have stated repeatedly that I believe a fundamental tension occurs in the game between what one thinks one knows, and what is actually true, one can easily see (I hope) that it would be impossible that this be so -- it would destroy that fundamental tension!

Consider the linked example, where the PCs go chasing a manticore.  The manticore is certainly built up; they are told exactly what it is.  The miller is also a monster, and perhaps a worse monster.  He is footprinted all over the scenario, but it is up to the players to act in order to determine what those footprints mean.  Likewise, the local fey are present, and in some ways dangerous, but exactly what is happening is left for the players to interpret.

There is heavy footprinting going on; there is not a lot of "handing it to the PCs on a plate" going on.



> Having presented that, do you really find it hard to beleive that the impression I got was that you were advocating handing PCs complete warnings about every upcoming encounter??




Assuming that there was nothing else presented, no.  Assuming that it was taken in context of the post, the post it responded to, and the other posts in this thread, very much so. 



> I... though that it _hadn't _been your point of view that 'the players were at fault' if they walk into a Save or Die fight without fair warning?




Define "fault".  I think you are conflating two meanings of the term, and I have already discussed that conflation upthread.

Fault as in "Bad player!  Bad!  No cookie for you!"?  No.

Fault as in "Your decisions led to this"?  Yep.

Likewise, it is the DM's "fault" in that he designed the setting, and determined how the setting was going to work (i.e., "fault" in the sense that "his decisions led to this").  This sort of "fault" has nothing to do with right or wrong, merely with responsibility.

If the DM specifically acted so as to prevent the PCs from using their abilities to deal with the problems -- including information-gathering -- involved (frex. if the DM didn't allow divination spells to work just 'cause it changed the way the scenario would play out in his head, when the PCs tried to find out what was in an enemy wizard's spellbook) then the DM is also at fault in the "Bad DM!  Bad!  No cookie for you!" sense.

I don't think players can be "at fault" in a "Bad player!  Bad!  No cookie for you!" sense, apart from outright cheating or bad sportsmanship, but I certainly do believe that players can be "at fault" in a "not figuring out the clues" (esp. when they become obvious in hindsight, as has happened to me as a player more than once) or a "not living up to your best potential" sense.

As a case of the "not living up to your best potential" sense, a player who exhibits poor tactics in a combat that would otherwise be easy, a player who expends resources foolishly, a player who gives up merely because things seem difficult, or a player who spurns carrying antitoxin when going into the Lair of the Poisonous Things because he doesn't think it necessary.

IOW, if players enter a room with a Save or Die Encounter, both the GM and the players are responsible.  It is not one or the other.  The GM created the encounter; the players made the decisions that led to their actually encountering the encounter.



RC


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 31, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The idea that the Medusa's snakes can't be spotted from range is stupid. That isn't a problem with SoD; that is a problem with the monster description in the RAW (though I'd like the full and exact quote, if anyone has their 1e MM handy).




The actual statements there are unanimously positive, not negative:


> _Description:_ The body of a medusa appears quite shapely and human. They typically wear human clothing. However, the face is of horrid visage, and its snakey hair writhes, so at a close distance (20') this gives the creature away. The glaring red-rimmed eyes of a medusa are visible clearly at 30'.



The "logic" that turns the positive statements into negative ones is of the same absolutist order as reasoning that because thieves can remove small trap devices with a dice roll, there is (barring magic) no other way to deal with traps; or that because they can climb sheer surfaces and move silently, other characters cannot climb trees or move quietly.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 31, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Then, at that point, we are in such a serious disconnect, that we probably can't even discuss the SoD issue further.




Well, fair enough. The entire reason I tried to seperate it from the rest of the discussion was because of how disconnected it was from the main points of the discussion, and I'm not sure how disagreement here affects the rest of the topic. 



Raven Crowking said:


> Actually, 3rd Edition does work like that: "An opponent can...turn his back on the creature...." An opponent can turn his back on a creature -- there is facing, even if it is not generally used. And it is not true that "you can only avoid it by looking away entirely or trying to avert your eyes" -- you can avoid it by not looking at the *creature's face*.
> 
> *Those are the rules.*




I just see this extreme disconnect that being hidden from something means it is impossible to view its gaze. 

A rogue, in combat, can't dart into the shadows, and then turn and somehow safely look upon the Bodak. Similarly, a rogue, sneaking outside a house, who peers in through the window to specifically look upon the creature inside, is not somehow incapable of seeing its gaze. 

I mean, let's think about this for a second. Say I'm a rogue hiding in the shadows, watching the passerby. Do I really not get to see anyone's face? Does hiding from them really mean that they are constantly turned away from me? 

No, it means that I have successfully managed to blend into the shadows so that they don't notice me. I can still identify them. I can study their features. 

Think about what you would say if a rogue sneaked up to peer into a house and see who is inside, and the DM declared he couldn't get any angle at which to view the person's features, since doing so would mean the rogue himself was instantly seen? Does that really make sense?

I'd find that far more a travesty of DMing than this. 

The rules you quote list the conditions for avoiding a gaze attack - to close your eyes or to look away from it. Or its face, as the case may be. 

Either way, someone who is peering in a window and staring at a creature is not doing either of these things. 



			
				Planesailing said:
			
		

> While it is conceivable that a rogue might be hidden and end up looking straight into the creatures eyes, occams razor suggests that if he has correctly hidden, then that is a particularly unlikely result.




I can see the rational in where you are starting from, here - someone hidden is, presumably, someone that isn't not being directly stared at by the one they are observing. But that isn't really what hiding is about - it is about concealing yourself in the shadows. If a Bodak is standing in the room, watching the door, and you look in through a window and observe it, its face remains visible to you, whether it notices you or not. 

Could the Bodak happen to be looking in another direction? Maybe. But one standing at the back of the room, watching the doorway as instructed, isn't going to magically turn around or away from you because you look in through the window.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Care to tell me what my response is, then, too?



Given an argument that SoD is bad because it leads to Broken Encounter A, B, C, and D, I have demonstrated repeatedly that none of those encounters need to be broken, and that, in general, the broken encounters also tend to lead to an inconsistent game milieu.  If one allows for internal consistency and self-reference, one tends not to have the broken encounters as exampled.

Does that mean that broken scenarios do not exist?  Of course not.

Does that mean that one cannot use a SoD monster -- or any monster -- in a way that is neither broken nor telegraphed?  Of course not.

What it means is that one need not use broken encounters.  And one need not ditch SoD to not use broken encounters.

And, Crom forbid that I have to object once more to the word "obvious".  Why does that word have to creep in again and again?  Because signs of a medusa are present, it does not mean that they are "obvious".  That is a tired, tired straw man.  You think that my point is that such signs must be, or even should be, obvious?

The bigger the environmental footprint, the more obvious the signs.  That is true, IRL, for just about everything.  And, as IRL, that doesn't mean that the signs are observed, correctly interpretted, or heeded if understood.

And, "the more obvious the signs" =/= NEON SIGN.

"2" is a bigger number than "1".  If I say "2" is bigger than "1", it does not imply that "2" is almost 2,000,000,000.



> Really? It has been my experience that, if PCs stumble upon a level appropriate encounter, a PC at full health will rarely be slain outright before having a chance to act. Unless SoD is involved.




Ah.  Now your "scary giant" is level appropriate, and the PCs are at full health.  More power to the animated goal posts, I suppose.  Their movement rate far exceeds my own!  

I guess if you can only imagine responsibility as having "screwed up" if things don't pan out the way you want them to, it makes sense to play a more padded game.  I neither require not expect "enough information to make a completely informed decision" - I expect that adventuring is going to including having to "make a gamble".  Indeed, the fundamental tensions of the game are all gambles.

This reminds me very much of certain other posts upthread, where the question seems to be "But how can I be *safe*?"

The obvious answer is, "Don't be an adventurer."

The perhaps less obvious, but equally true, answer is, "If you don't like risks, play a game without them.  Choose a game where your safety isn't actually in question, or where your gambles are never big gambles.  There are plenty of games like this to choose from.  Heck, Gary Gygax even recommended one such game in the 1e DMG!"



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> The "logic" that turns the positive statements into negative ones is of the same absolutist order as reasoning that because thieves can remove small trap devices with a dice roll, there is (barring magic) no other way to deal with traps; or that because they can climb sheer surfaces and move silently, other characters cannot climb trees or move quietly.




That makes sense; thank you.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I'd find that far more a travesty of DMing than this.





And you can house-rule it as you like, if that's what floats your boat.  Just, please, be aware that that is what you are doing here.

For the record, the rogue who said "I am trying to hide from him, and meet his gaze at the same time" is going to find one or the other unsuccessful at my table.

Shall we pull out the full text, rather than the SRD summary?  I imagine, as with the 1e medusa, that it will prove enlightening.



RC


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 31, 2010)

MrMyth said:
			
		

> And maybe that is part of the old school field that I'm not getting, that there is a level of player skill to making sure they aren't taken unaware by an encounter.
> 
> But I don't think that level of behavior is a reasonable expectation for a game.



That's a Grand Canyon of a culture gap.

I expect that RC, like me, grew up playing games of skill as well as chance. I'm not even talking wide-open wargame / proto-role-playing-game campaigns like the galactic conquest game some friends and I made up for ourselves before we encountered D&D. I mean a whole host of games that were very challenging, whether of skills intellectual, physical or social.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 31, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Ah. Now your "scary giant" is level appropriate, and the PCs are at full health. More power to the animated goal posts, I suppose. Their movement rate far exceeds my own!




Dude, not cool. I'm not moving any goalposts here. I'm trying to explain myself, and demonstrate the issues with SoD compared to other encounters. 

If you are indeed claiming that SoD is expected to be equivalent to entering a fight that isn't level appropriate, or entering a fight already injured and in a position to lose, than I suggest that you have directly proven that something is wrong with SoD in the context of the game. 



Raven Crowking said:


> I guess if you can only imagine responsibility as having "screwed up" if things don't pan out the way you want them to, it makes sense to play a more padded game. I neither require not expect "enough information to make a completely informed decision" - I expect that adventuring is going to including having to "make a gamble". Indeed, the fundamental tensions of the game are all gambles.
> 
> This reminds me very much of certain other posts upthread, where the question seems to be "But how can I be *safe*?"
> 
> The obvious answer is, "Don't be an adventurer."




You know what? I think I'm done here. 

My position, all along, has not been that I want the character to be guaranteed safety. 

My position has been that I don't want my death to be instantaneous and feel like I couldn't do anything about it. 

It isn't that I don't want to have to take gambles in adventuring. It is that I don't want one botched gamble to instantly result in my death. That's the entire point!

To you, apparently, this is playing "in a padded game". This is "playing safe". Or being unwilling to accept responsibility for the decisions made as a player, or a character's failure to find the right clue. 

Fair enough. You've got your style of play, and you're welcome to it. I've never argued with that. But I'm done trying to justify my preference to you. If you really can't understand it, or even make the attempt to do so, and you really can't help but find fault or talk down to the way other people like to play, than this discussion was pointless from the start.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 31, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> And you can house-rule it as you like, if that's what floats your boat. Just, please, be aware that that is what you are doing here.




Planesailing has given an argument as to why common sense should override the rules here, and that I can understand where he is coming from, even though I don't agree with it. I'm not sure where you made the conclusion that was what is specified in the rules. The houserules being proposed are the ones you are making, not anyone else. 



Raven Crowking said:


> For the record, the rogue who said "I am trying to hide from him, and meet his gaze at the same time" is going to find one or the other unsuccessful at my table.




So, just to confirm, it is your belief that a rogue who has successfully hid himself is not capable of viewing the face of someone he is observing?


----------



## Scribble (Aug 31, 2010)

If the character's intelligence and wisdom stats weren't supposed to enter into the characters ability to overcome traps and instead it was all about player skill... How come the same wasn't true for physical stats? 

How come people didn't like, arm wrestle the DM to see who won the fight vrs the monster?


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 31, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> That's a Grand Canyon of a culture gap.
> 
> I expect that RC, like me, grew up playing games of skill as well as chance. I'm not even talking wide-open wargame / proto-role-playing-game campaigns like the galactic conquest game some friends and I made up for ourselves before we encountered D&D. I mean a whole host of games that were very challenging, whether of skills intellectual, physical or social.




Like I said, different styles. I'm not advocating a game were player skill is absent, by any means!

But it is sounding like there is an expected approach, from what you are saying, where the game is more about the player and the DM trying to outsmart each other. And I can see the entertainment in that, and that there is room for games along those lines - but at the same time, I don't really want that to be the default for the game, and think that at the extreme, it starts to get into the style of behavior mocked in Knights of the Dinner Table, or the 'magical arms race' where each side needs to have multiple layers of 'counters' to come out ahead.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 31, 2010)

MrMyth said:
			
		

> And I can see the entertainment in that, and that there is room for games along those lines - but at the same time, I don't really want that to be the default for the game...



Do what you will is the whole of the law for _your_ game.

Otherwise, I am sorry but -- like football or figure skating or whatever else you might undertake to dislike -- it's not about you. The people who like it are as entitled to it as you are to the things that you like.

Live and let live (or save and die, as the case may be).




			
				MrMyth said:
			
		

> I enter level 7 of a dungeon. I know that there could be Bodaks here, just like there could be any of a thousand other level 7 monsters.




"What is a bodak?" I wondered.

According to the AD&D _Monster Manual II_:


> A bodak is a human who was changed to a monster after venturing somewhere upon the Abyssal Planes where mortals were not meant to be....
> 
> Bodaks are very rare because they remain upon the Abyssal Plane except when called into service by some evil or foolish magic-user.



I reckon that if a foolish magic-user can discover how to summon one in the first place, then slightly less foolish adventurers can discover what they need to know about the lair of Dreadgore the Deranged and the Dweller in Darkness before they invite themselves in.

If the damned thing isn't _using_ its death gaze, then what was the point of Dreadgore's having gone to the trouble?


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 31, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Planesailing has given an argument as to why common sense should override the rules here, and that I can understand where he is coming from, even though I don't agree with it. I'm not sure where you made the conclusion that was what is specified in the rules. The houserules being proposed are the ones you are making, not anyone else.



Its not a houserule really - you have to meet the creatures gaze to be affected by it - what that means is determined by the DM - merely looking does not automatically equal meeting its gaze. If it did the text about averting your eyes wouldn't make any sense. In addition, unless otherwise stated the creature does not have to have it's gaze active at all times. It is the DM's call whether or not an unaware bodak has it's killing gaze active. I find the idea that it would have it's gaze active all the time a bit odd and highly unlikely. Otherwise everything around it would be dying (insects, vermin, rats, bats, etc) which would probably leave an environmental foot print that wouldn't be too hard to notice.

IMO, YMMV and all that - play the way you like it's all fine and dandy - yes it's possible that the players may miss all the clues and blunder into a nasty gaze attack, just like it's possible to open the wrong door while scouting and get to that level +4 solo encounter alone and die before getting to do anything - the number of needed rolls before that's a game breaker varies from person to person. Agree to disagree - its all some form of D&D.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 31, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Do what you will is the whole of the law for _your_ game.
> 
> Otherwise, I am sorry but -- like football or figure skating or whatever else you might undertake to dislike -- it's not about you. The people who like it are as entitled to it as you are to the things that you like.




And I've never said otherwise. I'm pretty sure the argument has been the other way around - that the approach I prefer in the game isn't acceptable from someone else's point of view (or isn't 'logically consistent' as the argument might be.)  



Ariosto said:


> I reckon that if a foolish magic-user can discover how to summon one in the first place, then slightly less foolish adventurers can discover what they need to know about the lair of Dreadgore the Demented and the Dweller in Darkness before they invite themselves in.




That's one assumption. But... not one that always holds true. 

I mean, how many possible monstrosities can a bad guy summon? This expectation that PCs should be able to pinpoint precisely what resources an enemy has and what monsters they will fight - that players are "foolish" if they are not capable of knowing in advance what they will be encountering - really is not an attitude I agree with. 

I think there can be games that are about that level of investigation and some sort of battle of wits between the players and the DM. But I don't think that is, or should be, true of every game. And I think there remains many, many legitimate reasons why PCs can - and often will - enter an encounter without knowing exactly what they are up against.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> You don't feel that is what you are saying, that's fine. Nonetheless, that is how it came across, to me.






			
				MrMyth said:
			
		

> That is absolutely what you have been arguing.






			
				MrMyth said:
			
		

> Again, you are saying that if a PC makes an uninformed decision, it means either the player screwed up by not looking hard enough, or the DM screwed up by not having more clues.




Regardless of clarifications and objections that this is not what I am saying.....And yet



MrMyth said:


> Dude, not cool. I'm not moving any goalposts here. I'm trying to explain myself, and demonstrate the issues with SoD compared to other encounters.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You know what? I think I'm done here.




The only thing I can say here is, if you think I am in error in my response, it rather reflects what I am responding to.  You have told me, repeatedly, what I think.  You have ignored, repeatedly, every clarification.  And you are upset because I draw conclusions from your post?

Sorry, but AFAICT and IMHO, expecting a certain level of sure information prior to making any decision which could be disasterous is a guarantee of safety.  Not *absolute* safety, sure.  But safety nonetheless.  A guarantee that one botched gamble will not instantly result in your character's death. 

Or, as I pointed out repeatedly, it is more accurate to say a guarantee that a plethora of botched gambles with less than perfect information will not result in your death prior to having at least two chances to react once information has become crystal-clear.

And, yes, to me this is playing "in a padded game".  This is "playing safe". 

It is not "being unwilling to accept responsibility for the decisions made as a player" unless, as a player, you entered a game where you bear that responsibility.  Clearly, this is a game where you do not. 

And that's fine, if it is what you want.  You don't have to justify your preference to anyone -- until the point where you advocate removing something from the game that I value.  

At that point, yes, I will examine the implications of that preference, and I will contest the removal of that thing.



MrMyth said:


> So, just to confirm, it is your belief that a rogue who has successfully hid himself is not capable of viewing the face of someone he is observing?




Sorry?  I am uncertain whether you done here, or did you want an answer?

Assuming the second, obviously not.  

"Meeting the gaze of" =/= "viewing the face of".

I'm not at home right now, so I don't have the full text in front of me.  If, after reading the full text (as opposed to the SRD text), it turns out that "gaze attacks" really should have been called "face attacks", I will concede that you are correct......And count that as another strike against the 3e design team.  

Until that point, however, I intend to give the design team the benefit of the doubt.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2010)

Scribble said:


> If the character's intelligence and wisdom stats weren't supposed to enter into the characters ability to overcome traps and instead it was all about player skill... How come the same wasn't true for physical stats?
> 
> How come people didn't like, arm wrestle the DM to see who won the fight vrs the monster?




Why doesn't the character's intelligence and wisdom stats determine what tactics the character uses in combat?  Why doesn't the character's intelligence and wisdom stats determine what diretion he chooses?  Why have the player show up at all?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 31, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> And I've never said otherwise. I'm pretty sure the argument has been the other way around - that the approach I prefer in the game isn't acceptable from someone else's point of view (or isn't 'logically consistent' as the argument might be.)





Correction:  Because scenarios outlined are not consistent, it doesn't follow that an idea cannot be used consistently.

"I don't like my PC's death to be instantaneous" is inconsistent with liking SSSoD because the final S results in instanteous D (or not), just as with SoD.

"I prefer SS before SoD" is consistent, and one can then examine exactly what SS provides (ex., at least one, and possibly two clear choices where most variables are known prior to the final SoD, which can be used to alter the situation in some way).

In the waaayyyyy upthread discussion, I would have said that you prefer more narrative control (when discussing narrative vs. random tension).  All games require both a random/unkown element (to give choices consequence, and to be games) and a narrative element (so that choices can occur in context).

Games with stronger narrative elements are "safer" than those with stronger random/unknown elements.  That's pretty much tautological.


RC


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 31, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:
			
		

> I believe Tiamat to have been on the 1e DMG tables.



That's a 1/500 chance on Monster Level X, which gives from a 1/10,000 chance on Dungeon Levels 8-11 to a 1/2,500 chance on Dungeon Levels 16 and deeper.

Demon Princes there are 40 times more common, Elder Titans 50 times. Other specimens of Monster Level X include:
Beholders
Arch-devils
Ancient and Very Old Dragons
Iron Golems
Liches
Vampires

A DM can use monsters stupidly or brilliantly regardless of whether he was determined from the start to use them or generated the ideas with rolls on tables.

It's all in the implementation. 

At the end of the day, the quality of the dungeon depends on the quality of the Dungeon Master.

According to the _Monster Manual_:


> Tiamat rules the first plane of the Nine Hells where she spawns all of evil dragonkind. She hates all good as fiercely as she loves cruelty and hoards wealth. She is seldom (10%) outside her lair, but occasionally she comes to earth to place a new dragon or to seek more treasure. She can travel astrally or ethereally.



That would certainly be a memorable encounter, although a person of Chaotic Stupid alignment might not survive to recount it.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 31, 2010)

MrMyth said:
			
		

> That's one assumption. But... not one that always holds true.



Which is up to whom, pray tell?

If you are really determined to hit your players with inescapable doom, then your fixation on methods that permit saving throws can only be a godsend to them!


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 1, 2010)

MrMyth said:
			
		

> If you are indeed claiming that SoD is expected to be equivalent to entering a fight that isn't level appropriate, or entering a fight already injured and in a position to lose, than I suggest that you have directly proven that something is wrong with SoD in the context of the game.



Since "wrong" is just your own opinion, there is no sense in anyone else "proving" it.

"Save or die" is intended to restore risk, and that is just what it does.

In _Chainmail_, precursor of D&D and its "Alternative" combat system, normal men needed to score four _simultaneous_ kills against a Hero to eliminate it. Otherwise, there was no effect. 

An attack by one Hero or other fantastic figure against another had three possible results: No Effect, Defender Falls Back a move, or Defender Killed.

Essentially, _everything_ was "save or die" for a Hero, Superhero, Seer, Magician, Warlock, Sorcerer or Wizard.

_Dungeons & Dragons_ added hit points, which provided for gradual attrition rather than sudden death. (A number of monsters may have been meant to be treated similarly versus normal men in _Chainmail_, as the rules referred to "cumulative" hits.)

"Save or die" distinguished certain monsters as especially dangerous for high-level characters that otherwise tended to have a big hit-point buffer for risk management.


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 1, 2010)

MrMyth said:
			
		

> So, just to confirm, it is your belief that a rogue who has successfully hid himself is not capable of viewing the face of someone he is observing?



I'm not RC, obviously, but I take it as plain by normal English usage that one cannot "meet the gaze" of a subject from whom one is "hidden".

A gaze is a long, steady look. "To meet a gaze" is to look at someone _while that one looks back_. Even more usually, and pretty explicitly in the cases at hand, it is to "look someone in the eye". It is a meeting _of_ gazes, a reciprocal alignment of focus both optical and in attention.


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 1, 2010)

MrMyth said:
			
		

> This expectation that PCs should be able to pinpoint precisely what resources an enemy has and what monsters they will fight - that players are "foolish" if they are not capable of knowing in advance what they will be encountering - really is not an attitude I agree with.



Nobody but you and Hussar appears to be expressing that attitude.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 1, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Buy if I'm fighting a Bodak, or a Basilisk, or a Medusa, and I spend my turns hiding in the shadows and shooting them, I'm not immune to their gaze attacks. Their gaze attacks involve _me looking at them_. It doesn't matter if they can see _me_ or not. If Perseus is invisible, and standing in front of a Medusa, and meets its gaze, he turns to stone. If a rogue is in the shadows, spying on a Bodak, he's still subject to saving vs death.
> 
> Now, you could argue that there is no guarantee the Bodak is looking in his direction. And there, maybe, you might have a point, and could make up some chance as to whether the Bodak is looking that way or not. Of course, 3rd Edition doesn't work like that - there is no facing. Gaze attacks happen when you are within a certain range and look at the creature - you can only avoid it by looking away entirely or trying to avert your eyes. Those are the rules.
> 
> The idea that if you hide from a creature, this somehow _physically prevents it from looking in your direction_ - I'm sorry, but there's no justification for that. And arguing that running the rules the way they are written is the fault of the DM here, rather than ths system, is absolutely absurd.



That's because you're letting 3e RAW get in the way of common sense and well-known mythology.

For a gaze attack to work in myth*, the attacker and the target have to be looking at each other at the same time - their eyes have to meet.  3e did away with facing and in so doing gave gaze attacks much more power and the wrong name; because gaze - as in eyes meeting - is obviously no longer a factor.

If I'm looking in a window at a basilisk who is watching a door in the right-hand wall, I'm safe - or I should be.  Get the rules out of the way and use common sense.

* - Medusa is the exception here; merely looking at her face at all could do you in, whether you met her eyes or not.

Lan-"I've died, lost limbs, been polymorphed - but never turned to stone"-efan


----------



## pemerton (Sep 1, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> can you tell I'm not a big fan of metagame



I've noticed this about you. I'd posrep you for having such a consistent and friendly way of talking about your gaming preferences, but must spread more XP around at this time.



MrMyth said:


> How many stories are there about characters that are still growing, developing, etc? The majority of them, I expect. Yet the character still remains the protagonist and is deeply tied to the story without having to be the most powerful figure in the world.
> 
> <snip examples>
> 
> Both of these campaigns can be perfectly fun, and are perfectly legitimate styles of play. But in the second, the story is more about the characters than the Lich. It isn't about them seeking him out and becoming heroes by proving themselves against the bad guys of the setting, it is about them exploring their own personal stories as they connect to the plot of the game.



Couldn't agree more, but also must spread more XP!


----------



## pemerton (Sep 1, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> "I don't like my PC's death to be instantaneous" is inconsistent with liking SSSoD because the final S results in instanteous D (or not), just as with SoD.
> 
> "I prefer SS before SoD" is consistent, and one can then examine exactly what SS provides (ex., at least one, and possibly two clear choices where most variables are known prior to the final SoD, which can be used to alter the situation in some way).



It's never occurred to me to interpret the first of these in any way other than as equivalent (in intended meaning) to the second. The objection to SoD as instantaneous is an objection to it being _instantaneous relative to the players salient field of action._ And for non-exploration based play - which is a good chunk of contemporary RPGing, including a good chunk of D&D play - the salient field of action typically is _not_ the gameworld. It's often not even the adventure. It may be a particular location. It is most often the encounter.

I'll happily agree with you and Ariosto that a game in which the salient field of action is the gameworld is one in which SoD is not necessarily objectionable, and (depending on some other things, like the players' tolerance for gamble over calculation) may even add to the game.

But I can't agree with what I take you to be saying, that a game in which the salient field of action for the players is something less than the entire gameworld is a bad game, or a game that exemplifies bad GMing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 1, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> I'm not RC, obviously, but I take it as plain by normal English usage that one cannot "meet the gaze" of a subject from whom one is "hidden".
> 
> A gaze is a long, steady look. "To meet a gaze" is to look at someone _while that one looks back_. Even more usually, and pretty explicitly in the cases at hand, it is to "look someone in the eye". It is a meeting _of_ gazes, a reciprocal alignment of focus both optical and in attention.




Indeed.

I pulled out the 3.0 DMG this morning and re-read the section on gaze attacks.  Lo and behold, what is described is meeting a creature's gaze, followed by some rules for determining when that would happen.  Activity both from the gaze-attacker and the gaze-meeter.  Not simply glancing at someone's face.

Huh.  Who woulda thunk it?



Lanefan said:


> That's because you're letting 3e RAW get in the way of common sense and well-known mythology.




Apparently not.

Seems like too much reliance on the SRD, and not enough looking at the actual rules to see what the SRD material is supposed to represent, to me.



pemerton said:


> It's never occurred to me to interpret the first of these in any way other than as equivalent (in intended meaning) to the second. The objection to SoD as instantaneous is an objection to it being _instantaneous relative to the players salient field of action._ And for non-exploration based play - which is a good chunk of contemporary RPGing, including a good chunk of D&D play - the salient field of action typically is _not_ the gameworld. It's often not even the adventure. It may be a particular location. It is most often the encounter.




(1)  Take a gander back up the thread, and see if you can discover anyone ever making note that encounter-based design has an effect on the problem.

(2)  If "the salient field of action typically is _not_ the gameworld" or "even the adventure" that leads directly to a lack of coherent self-reference in both game world and adventure.  A rather perfect description of the modules produced by WotC, now that I think about it!  

Yes, a lack of coherent self-reference can cause problems, and if you are playing a game without coherent self-reference the encounters themselves should probably have extra layers of padding, because neither the game world nor the adventure will provide it.

(3)  Even so, the objection is one of "clear choices" to be made prior to the final roll that results either in death or not.  

If death is a possibility in a game, there is always a final move/roll that determines whether or not that outcome occurs.  This is tautological.  Removing SoD does not remove that, so if that is the objection, the only reasonable response is to remove the possibility of death.  Some folks do that.

However, the objection that specifically says SSSoD is okay (or good, even), while SoD is not, must perforce rely upon what SS adds to the SoD.  And what SS adds are at least one, and probably two, decision points after the situation has become crystal clear.

That is all about minimizing the gamble taken, and maximizing narrative control.

(An alternate coherent hypothesis, if you prefer, is that some people believe SSSoD is better than SoD because they believe SS will prevent the SoD part of the equation from happening for some other reason that the one, and probably two, decision points after the situation has become crystal clear.  Perhaps they don't really care about the decision points -- although most seem to make that claim -- and just think that the extra rolls will cushion the odds....allowing for the dubious "thrill" of facing death with little chance of it actually occuring.

If so, though, this is still all about minimizing the gamble taken, and maximizing narrative control.)

And, AFAICT, this entire discussion is about how some people wish to minimize the gamble taken, and maximize narrative control _*while trying to convince themselves or others that this is not so.*_

Play the game you want.  Different strokes for different folks.  Life is too short to play games you don't enjoy.

But, as the man said in _*The Outlaw Josey Wales*_, "REMOVED FOR UNINTENDED IMPLICATION."  EDIT FOR INTENDED IMPLICATION:  "Don't expect us to believe that it is something it is not."



RC


----------



## Scribble (Sep 1, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Why doesn't the character's intelligence and wisdom stats determine what tactics the character uses in combat?  Why doesn't the character's intelligence and wisdom stats determine what diretion he chooses?  Why have the player show up at all?




Dunno... 

All I'm saying is that it just seems kind of natural to me that a player (especially a frustrated player) would look at his 18 INT and wonder why it has no relevance towards helping Presto the Perspicacious escape the DM's "Ye Olde Merry Riddle Trappe" that's about to fry him...

From that the outgrowth of secondary skills / proficiencies and then skills feats and powers again seems only natural to me.

I have no real issue if you're cool with a game of match wits with the DM... 

If everyone playing is on the same page- go for it...

Just seems like two separate games to me, as well as frustrating and kind of jarring- particularly  if you're dealing with the Egotistical kind of DM that has determined the only right way out of the trap/challenge is his way no matter whether another option would actually work...

It also seems to me that in a game like that, when in a battle with a mighty dragon it should be equally appropriate for Joe the Body Builder playing a character with 4 strength to stand up, round-house kick the DM in the teeth 80's action movie style,  then declare "Boo-Ya!!! Dragon defeated! Player skillz beotch!"


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 1, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I'll happily agree with you and Ariosto that a game in which the salient field of action is the gameworld is one in which SoD is not necessarily objectionable, and (depending on some other things, like the players' tolerance for gamble over calculation) may even add to the game.




Done.



> But I can't agree with what I take you to be saying, that a game in which the salient field of action for the players is something less than the entire gameworld is a bad game, or a game that exemplifies bad GMing.




Hmmm.

Say, rather, that a game in which the salient field of action is so narrowed that the encounter becomes that field, so that the field allows no forewarning to even be possible, nor any choice on the part of the players as to what is encountered, and which therefore makes self-reference and consistency either impossible or moot, is a game in which those encounters must provide the entirety of what was provided by the whole of the setting before, or it will be a bad game IMHO.

Certainly a lesser game, because the game world narrows down to the salient field of action.  Everything else is just colour.  Narrow that field, and, perforce, you narrow the game.

Certainly a different game than what was originally known as "Dungeons & Dragons".  I guess that is a tacit admission that the game is no longer the same?

Moreover, the bad GMing examples arise from the GM designing encounters as though salient field of action for the players was the gameworld, when it is in fact the encounter.  I.e., the bodak *really did *just jump out of your closet before you had a chance to do anything in the very narrow salient field of action "game world" that is now the "encounter".


RC


----------



## Umbran (Sep 1, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> But, as the man said in _*The Outlaw Josey Wales*_, "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."   Some of us, at least, can tell the difference.





Right. The implication being that some folks cannot tell the difference between piss and rain, and/or that someone is willfully pissing on others.  

How about this: Don't be rude and tell us it is clever pop-culture reference - some of us can tell the difference.

That goes for everybody - if you cannot play nicely, then don't play.  Pretty darned simple, really.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 1, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Dunno...
> 
> All I'm saying is that it just seems kind of natural to me that a player (especially a frustrated player) would look at his 18 INT and wonder why it has no relevance towards helping Presto the Perspicacious escape the DM's "Ye Olde Merry Riddle Trappe" that's about to fry him...




It should!

I know of at least one game that has a "Reasoning Save" that allows the player to gain additional clues from the GM.  The player still has to figure out the riddle, but an intelligent PC (and esp. one that invests in Reasoning) does so with far more hints and clues than does Joe the Barbarian.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 1, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> That's a Grand Canyon of a culture gap.
> 
> I expect that RC, like me, grew up playing games of skill as well as chance. I'm not even talking wide-open wargame / proto-role-playing-game campaigns like the galactic conquest game some friends and I made up for ourselves before we encountered D&D. I mean a whole host of games that were very challenging, whether of skills intellectual, physical or social.



What is the implication here? That your preference in D&D playstyle stems from enjoying games of skill?

I grew up playing bridge and other various card games of skill, and I couldn't disagree more with most anything you say about SoD, or D&D in general.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 1, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> That's because you're letting 3e RAW get in the way of common sense and well-known mythology.
> 
> For a gaze attack to work in myth*, the attacker and the target have to be looking at each other at the same time - their eyes have to meet. 3e did away with facing and in so doing gave gaze attacks much more power and the wrong name; because gaze - as in eyes meeting - is obviously no longer a factor.
> 
> If I'm looking in a window at a basilisk who is watching a door in the right-hand wall, I'm safe - or I should be. Get the rules out of the way and use common sense.




Hmm, maybe this is the difference of understanding here. I've always viewed Gaze attacks as working in the classic medusa fashion - if you gaze upon the creature's visage, you are potentially afflicted by it. Hence why it is so hard to avoid - even if you actively are looking away, and focusing your gaze at the creature's shadow, feet, or tracking it in a mirror, you've got a 50/50 chance of glancing up and seeing its eyes. 

I've never viewed it as having some sort of requirement that you need to have it recognize your presence in order for the Gaze to work. Everything that D&D has presented it as is that all it requires is that you "look at the creature’s eyes".

Now, if one feels that in order for a gaze attack to work, it requires both eyes to actively meet and acknowledge the presence of the other... well, I don't see any indication of that in the rules, but it doesn't seem an unreasonable house rule. 

On the other hand, I don't think its the only interpretation - as you note, no such thing is present in the Medusa myth. And the way the rules present it is that the only requirement is to look upon the creature's eyes, whether it is aware of you or not. 

Anyway, my big objection was with RC who was trying to present his position as being backed up by the rules themselves. The Common Sense argument... I understand where that is coming from. I don't necessarily agree with it, and I don't think it is fair to blame the DM for following the rules, but I see where people are coming from. 

RCs claim that you cannot physically see someone's eyes while you are hidden from them? Yeah, I don't see any truth to that.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 1, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Nobody but you and Hussar appears to be expressing that attitude.




There are at least 2 quotes near the start of this thread that seem to say that in pretty absolute terms. 

But the one that I was responding to was yours: 
_"I reckon that if a foolish magic-user can discover how to summon one in the first place, then slightly less foolish adventurers can discover what they need to know about the lair of Dreadgore the Deranged and the Dweller in Darkness before they invite themselves in."_

That... certainly reads to me as saying that any non-foolish adventurers can find out what they need to know about upcoming encounters before encountering them. 

If that isn't your attitude, then what precisely are you saying there?


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 1, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry? I am uncertain whether you done here, or did you want an answer?




Just to clarify - I still think there are some things worth discussing in this thread, and those I'm still going to try and resolve. 

What I am done with was the thread that grew out of trying to give my reasons for preferring not having Save or Die. You don't seem willing to recognize any differences between SSSoD and SoD, nor do you find it acceptable if I prefer having informed decision points in combat vs uninformed information gathering outside of combat. You feel that preferring certain types of challenges over others is playing in a 'padded game'. Fair enough. 

It is clear I am not going to convince you otherwise, hence, it seems worth bowing out of that part of the discussion with you, and focusing on other things.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 1, 2010)

Scribble said:


> All I'm saying is that it just seems kind of natural to me that a player (especially a frustrated player) would look at his 18 INT and wonder why it has no relevance towards helping Presto the Perspicacious escape the DM's "Ye Olde Merry Riddle Trappe" that's about to fry him...



It is relevant, in that the 18 INT plays affects what skills a character posesses, and how skillful the character is in using them. It's up to the player to *apply* those skills, however.

Your combat example falls flat because you're equating unlike things. You don't need to know how to use a lock pick set, but you do need to decide when your character attempts to pick a lock, and the attempt - the actual picking of the lock - is resolved by a die roll. Combat is the same - you decide when and where and how and with what, and the result is determined by die roll.

Riddles and puzzles may involve the application of skills and class abilities - in fantasy games various sorts of divination spells are useful, for example - but sometimes riddles and puzzles are included simply to challenge and entertain the players as part of playing a game together.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 1, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I've never viewed it as having some sort of requirement that you need to have it recognize your presence in order for the Gaze to work. Everything that D&D has presented it as is that all it requires is that you "look at the creature’s eyes".
> 
> Now, if one feels that in order for a gaze attack to work, it requires both eyes to actively meet and acknowledge the presence of the other... well, I don't see any indication of that in the rules, but it doesn't seem an unreasonable house rule.




You seem fixated on the idea that your interpretations are the rules, and others are house rules.

Let's read the first line of Gaze Attacks in the 3e DMG, shall we?

The medusa looks around, throwing dangerous glances everywhere, and focusing its eyes on specific victims.​
If you don't see "any indication...in the rules" that "it requires both eyes to actively meet and acknowledge the presence of the other" you are simply failing to read the rules.

Lidda closes her eyes and tries to aim her arrows by ear.  Jozan averts his eyes but tries to watch the creature with peripheral vision so he knows where to project his _searing light _spell.  Tordek trusts fate and looks the thing in the eye as he swings his mighty axe.  Magic washes through him and he shrugs it off.  Jozan, however, accidently catches the thing's eye, and he's not strong enough to resist.  His body hardens and turns to stone.​
So, according to the book, when are the characters potentially affected?  When Tordek looks the thing in the eye; when Jozan accidently catches the thing's eye.  

I.e., their eyes meet.

What is the medusa doing?  Looking around and focusing its gaze on specific victims.

I.e., she is trying to make thier eyes meet.

How does this apply to our bodak discussion?  

Well, if one believes that you can meet the eyes of someone you don't know is there, it doesn't.  On the other hand, I don't think its the only interpretation - you can houserule if you like.

I would argue that this would be a pretty weird discussion:

RC:  Watch out for that assassin!

MM:  What assassin?

RC:  What do you mean what assassin!  You're staring right into his eyes!

MM:  Sorry, I don't see any assassin!​


> Anyway, my big objection was with RC who was trying to present his position as being backed up by the rules themselves.




Pleased to provide quotes for you.



> RCs claim that you cannot physically see someone's eyes while you are hidden from them? Yeah, I don't see any truth to that.




Making eye contact, IMHO and IME, is pretty much the end of any successful attempt to hide.  If you can focus on me as a particular victim, you can see my eyes, and you are looking me in the eye, any interpretation that also includes I am successfully hiding from you is .... well, pretty strange from my point of view.

I have to ask, are you claiming to have ever, or to know of anyone who has ever, successfully hidden from someone while making eye contact with them?   Is there _*anyone*_ here who would make such a claim?



MrMyth said:


> You don't seem willing to recognize any differences between SSSoD and SoD




I pointed differences out upthread.



> nor do you find it acceptable if I prefer having informed decision points in combat vs uninformed information gathering outside of combat.




Sure I do.  

I even wrote quite a bit about the same over the course of the thread.



> You feel that preferring certain types of challenges over others is playing in a 'padded game'.




Now, that actually is true, depending upon what the "certain types of challenges" are.

As discussed waaaayyyyyy upthread, more danger doesn't necessarily make for a better game, nor does more randomness.  There is a tension between levels of randomness/danger and narrative control, and everyone has their own sweet spot somewhere between absolute randomness (no context) and absolute narrative control (no consequence).

When I said, not far above

Yes, a lack of coherent self-reference can cause problems, and if you are playing a game without coherent self-reference the encounters themselves should probably have extra layers of padding, because neither the game world nor the adventure will provide it.​
you might have noted that it implies that the game world or adventure will provide a form of padding as well.  I don't think that anyone wants to play in a (serious or semi-serious) game that has "wandering damage" charts, or anvils falling out of the sky on a 1 in 6 every round.

But, when you note a difference between "having informed decision points in combat vs uninformed information gathering outside of combat", I note that the discussion really seems to revolve more about "informed decision points" vs "uninformed information gathering".

Universally (or nearly so) folks have agreed here that it would be fair to introduce a SoD monster with informed decision points prior to the combat, so the "in combat" vs "outside of combat" seems to be a bit of a red herring.

And "informed decision points" vs "uninformed information gathering" are two different games.  One is more padded than the other simply due to the shift in information-management responsibility.  Playing a game with "uninformed information gathering" clearly requires a greater willingness to accept risk than playing a game where "informed decision points" _*must occur *_prior to any actual gamble being made.

And, for the manyth time in this thread alone, there is a tension between levels of randomness/danger and narrative control, and everyone has their own sweet spot somewhere between absolute randomness (no context) and absolute narrative control (no consequence).  

Whatever floats your boat in terms of that tension is what you should seek out.  Just don't try to tell me that you are not seeking out greater narrative control while doing so, or that what you are doing offers the same level of risk.  

Embrace what you want in a game, and I will support your right to have the game you want.  Just so long as, in order to do so, you are not trying to change the game _*I play*_ into that thing, and just so long as you are honest about what you are doing.


RC


----------



## RedShirtNo5.1 (Sep 1, 2010)

MrMyth has the correct rules interpretation.



> Gaze Attacks
> While the medusa's gaze is well known, gaze attacks can also charm, curse, or even kill. Gaze attacks not produced by a spell are supernatural.
> Each character within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw (which can be a Fortitude or Will save) each round at the beginning of his turn.
> An opponent can avert his eyes from the creature’s face, looking at the creature’s body, watching its shadow, or tracking the creature in a reflective surface. Each round, the opponent has a 50% chance of not having to make a saving throw. The creature with the gaze attack gains concealment relative to the opponent. An opponent can shut his eyes, turn his back on the creature, or wear a blindfold. In these cases, the opponent does not need to make a saving throw. The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment relative to the opponent.
> ...



All of the situations which permit an opponent to avoid a saving throw rely on the creature with the gaze attack having concealment from the opponent, e.g., the creature is invisible, the opponent closes his eyes or avoids looking at the creature, there is fog. Nothing indicates that a saving throw can be avoided by the opponent having concealment from the creature. In fact, the opposite is the case - the rules point out that gaze attacks can affect ethereal creatures and creatures with darkvision, i.e., situations where the opponent can see the creature but the creature may not be able to see the opponent. 



> RC: Watch out for that assassin!
> MM: What assassin?
> RC: What do you mean what assassin! You're staring right into his eyes!
> MM: Sorry, I don't see any assassin!



The ethereal assassin who RC sees with detect invisibility but MM cannot must make a saving throw against MM's gaze attack.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 1, 2010)

RedShirtNo5.1 said:


> MrMyth has the correct rules interpretation.




I think not.

You conveniently cut out 

The medusa looks around, throwing dangerous glances everywhere, and focusing its eyes on specific victims.  Lidda closes her eyes and tries to aim her arrows by ear. Jozan averts his eyes but tries to watch the creature with peripheral vision so he knows where to project his searing light spell. Tordek trusts fate and looks the thing in the eye as he swings his mighty axe. Magic washes through him and he shrugs it off. Jozan, however, accidently catches the thing's eye, and he's not strong enough to resist. His body hardens and turns to stone.​
There is a reason why the context comes first.  Without the context, the rules may indeed seem like it is a mere proximity attack, but it is not.  That is what the context is for.



> The ethereal assassin who RC sees with detect invisibility but MM cannot must make a saving throw against MM's gaze attack.




That is an instance in which you could both meet someone's gaze and that person not know it.  However, it is not applicable to the example given.  A visible being whose gaze you meet is a being that you are going to be aware of.  Can you example anything where that is untrue?

EDIT:  Please recall that, in 3e, the rules are still intended to reflect something which is happening in the fictional gamespace.  It is not until 4e that the rules take precedence over the context in which the action occurs.  I.e., in all pre-4e D&D, the context determines the application of the rules.  And, in this case, the context is clear.  In 4e, the rules sometimes (perhaps even often, but not always) determine the application of the context.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 1, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> You conveniently cut out




You make it sound like it was intentional, so as to mislead.  I think that's not fair.  It looks more to me like RedShirtNo5 took the listing from the d20 SRD verbatim, which does not contain your passage of context.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 1, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> It should!
> 
> I know of at least one game that has a "Reasoning Save" that allows the player to gain additional clues from the GM.  The player still has to figure out the riddle, but an intelligent PC (and esp. one that invests in Reasoning) does so with far more hints and clues than does Joe the Barbarian.




Thats usually what I do in situations like that where the players are stuck on a challenge that was set up outside of skills for fun.




The Shaman said:


> It is relevant, in that the 18 INT plays affects what skills a character posesses, and how skillful the character is in using them. It's up to the player to *apply* those skills, however.




Yes... that's what I'm saying.



> Your combat example falls flat because you're equating unlike things. You don't need to know how to use a lock pick set, but you do need to decide when your character attempts to pick a lock, and the attempt - the actual picking of the lock - is resolved by a die roll. Combat is the same - you decide when and where and how and with what, and the result is determined by die roll.




Yes... We agree.

Skills are good in a game because it lets the player that doesn't posses the same intellect and abilities do things he ordinarily wouldn't- just like combat.



> Riddles and puzzles may involve the application of skills and class abilities - in fantasy games various sorts of divination spells are useful, for example - but sometimes riddles and puzzles are included simply to challenge and entertain the players as part of playing a game together.




I know this... Again I don't disagree. Not sure what you're countering here.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 1, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> There is a reason why the context comes first.  Without the context, the rules may indeed seem like it is a mere proximity attack, but it is not.  That is what the context is for.




Well now, there's context and then there's context. The gaze attack's rules assume that you're really in an encounter with the creature - pretty much up close and personal. Within that context, it pretty much *is* a proximity attack barring the targets (the PCs) doing something to reduce their vulnerability.

With respect to the example of spying on a bodak through a window from upthread, I'd have a hard time calling that the same context as a close-up encounter. If the bodak is watching the door, I sure wouldn't impose the gaze attack. If the bodak's looking out the window, even if the rogue manages to hide successfully, I'd say that the gaze attack could occur - roll the save. That's the danger of a gaze attack, you can accidentally meet their gaze.

And I'd say that yes, a creature could make eye contact with a hidden PC and still not recognize it for what it is. Everyone's looked right at something and not really noticed it before, I'm sure.


----------



## RedShirtNo5.1 (Sep 1, 2010)

It's the entire text of the SRD about gaze attacks.

And I think the flavor text corresponds to it.

"The medusa looks around, throwing dangerous glances everywhere" = "Each character within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw"

"and focusing its eyes on specific victims." = "A creature with a gaze attack can actively attempt to use its gaze as an attack action."

"Lidda closes her eyes and tries to aim her arrows by ear." = "An opponent can shut his eyes, turn his back on the creature, or wear a blindfold. In these cases, the opponent does not need to make a saving throw. The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment relative to the opponent."

"Jozan averts his eyes but tries to watch the creature with peripheral vision so he knows where to project his searing light spell." = "An opponent can avert his eyes from the creature’s face, looking at the creature’s body, watching its shadow, or tracking the creature in a reflective surface."

"Tordek trusts fate and looks the thing in the eye as he swings his mighty axe. Magic washes through him and he shrugs it off." = "a Fortitude or Will save"

"Jozan, however, accidently catches the thing's eye," = "Each round, the opponent has a 50% chance of not having to make a saving throw."

"and he's not strong enough to resist. His body hardens and turns to stone." = "a Fortitude or Will save"


But enough side tracking.  As MrMyth said, General isn't the place for a rule debate.  Post a rule question in the Legacy Discussion and we could continue the rule debate there.


----------



## Sebastian1992 (Sep 1, 2010)

*Sometimes...*

I think it can be a good thing, but it really depends on the group. If it's a mature group and the save is not something frivolous, like a random encounter, it can be a very nice tool. 

If the group is immature, and there would be much qq, then it may not be such a good idea.


----------



## Abraxas (Sep 2, 2010)

RedShirtNo5.1 said:


> It's the entire text of the SRD about gaze attacks.



I believe you are missing the point - the text of the SRD demonstrates that you have to meet the creatures gaze - but meeting the creatures gaze does not = seeing the creature. Its up to the DM to decide if your character has met the creature's gaze.

The SRD doesn't include the additional descriptive text - the descriptive text could be read your way or RC's way - how you choose to read it affects how you play the game and how you deal with these type of abilities. Which may or may not affect your attitude toward SoD effects. Mr Myths rules interpretation is only correct for one reading of the text - but I don't think that's what's being discussed. It appears the discussion is about what character choices should matter and when. One side appears to want the choices to occur during the encounter/combat - the other side wants the choices to occur leading up to the encounter.

Both are effectively SSSoD effects, the timing is just different and the mechanism of the SS is different.

If everyone just picked the game that has an SS that appeals to them and didn't try to convince others that their SS was bad/wrong fun everyone would probably be happier - not that everyone in this thread is trying to convince others of that, but some give that appearance.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 2, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I guess that is a tacit admission that the game is no longer the same?



There's nothing tacit about the "admission". From the time some of the rules details of 4e started to be announced I have stated frequently and forcefully that it's a very different game from either AD&D or 3E. If it wasn't, I'd have no interest in playing it.

Not all 4e players agree with me. Not all see the game through the same "indie design" framework that I do. Not all are FoREs (= Friend of Ron Edwards, as coined by The Shaman). But to the extent that they disagree with me, they can speak for themselves.

More generally, I have to ask whether there is really a need to treat everyone's remarks as an attempt to score points. You've stated why you don't like a "scene" or "encounter" based game. Fine. A lot of other people do like such a game. I don't think you will persuade them (us) that this enjoyment is misguided by playing "gotcha" with everything they (we) say.



Raven Crowking said:


> a game in which the salient field of action is so narrowed that the encounter becomes that field, so that the field allows no forewarning to even be possible, nor any choice on the part of the players as to what is encountered, and which therefore makes self-reference and consistency either impossible or moot



If you think that an encounter or scene based game makes forewarning or player choice impossible, I think you have a strange conception of such a game. In a by-the-book Forge-style encounter based game, it is entirely the choices of the players that drive the sequences of scenes/encounters. And given this, the forewarning is ample.

As for the suggestiong that consistency is impossible or moot, I have no idea where that comes from or why you think it must be so. I run a scene-based 4e game. Not only is gameworld consistency maintained, but it is essential - it is the interaction between coherent backstories of players and gameworld that drives the game (for examples of what I have in mind, see the thread I started on different ways of using setting material).

I have GMed scene-based Rolemaster games in which save-or-suck is part of the game. Resolving encounters in such a game can involve resolving the suckage. (Various features of the Rolemaster spell lists and dying rules mean that save-and-literally-die is fairly rare in anything but very high level play.) I now GM a 4e game in which there is no SoD. I prefer the 4e approach, because dealing with the suckage pre-emptively (by giving bonuses to saving throws, making heal checks etc) is on the whole more engaging play for everyone at the table, including the player of the affected PC, than is dealing with the suckage after the event.

In a scene-based game the notion of avoiding the encounter altogether through careful forewarning, or waiting for the medusa to go shopping and burgling her house while she's gone - that is, the sort of responses to save-or-die threats that make sense in exploration-based play - are simply not applicable. The point of a scene-based game is that - for whatever thematic reason - the players _want_ their PCs to engage the medusa. The game therefore benefits from rules that enhance the playing out of that engagement. In my view, this is the rationale, in a game like 4e, for going from SoD to SSSoD.

And to conclude - as far as I know, no one is trying to steal your or Ariosto's books or make you change your game. All I'm trying to do (and this is also how I read Mr Myth) is explain why a game without SoD but with SSSoD can be a better game for a particular and highly viable approach to play.


----------



## josha (Sep 2, 2010)

I am a Dungeon Master and I voted *no*.
I have never found save or die fun in any way. It's not dramatic, it's not mechanically interesting, and it sucks to just have your character die without putting up a fight or even doing anything.
There are other ways to strike fear in to the hearts of your players such as brutally powerful monsters or overwhelming them with swarms of minions; but it's always more exiting to go down in a blaze of glory than instant, anti-climatic death.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 2, 2010)

pemerton said:


> If you think that an encounter or scene based game makes forewarning or player choice impossible, I think you have a strange conception of such a game. In a by-the-book Forge-style encounter based game, it is entirely the choices of the players that drive the sequences of scenes/encounters. And given this, the forewarning is ample.



Is this because the scenes are determined by player choices? And are those choices made during char gen, or play? Or perhaps both. I can see how the medusa encounter could be pre-determined because, say, one player has decided his father was petrified by her. The needs of story then pretty much demand an encounter with the medusa at some point, or at least some sort of resolution of the matter.

In the superhero campaign I previously ran, one player always liked to give his PCs an arch nemesis at char gen. His first was an Arthurian knight who had Merlin as his enemy, his second was a genetically modified Hulk-type called Strongo who had an evil Leader-type brother called Monstro. (I added a third brother, Strango, who was, tbh, rather unnecessary.)

In the D&D game I'm currently running, no one has quite such strong 'encounter drives' built in. Though there is the paladin of the Raven Queen I mentioned in another thread, who wants to destroy undead.

D&D characters traditionally start off motivated only by money, magic items and level ups. Those things can be found in lots of places, as the typical D&D world is filled with such things, so they are free to wander. Only as the game goes on would arch nemeses, such as Obmi, appear. Once such a nemesis does turn up though, one could say the game changes and a future encounter becomes fixed.

Ofc the Conan-style, money seeking approach is not the only way to play D&D. Dragonlance is a strong reaction against this - there is, I believe, no gold on Krynn - in favour of what is seen as more LotR-style motivations - the PCs in Dragonlance fight the draconians because they are trying to despoil the PCs homeland. And there's less choice there. The players aren't able to say, "Well, there's some kobolds with money, some orcs with money and some draconians with money. We could kill any of them and take their stuff and it would get us what we want."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 2, 2010)

Umbran said:


> You make it sound like it was intentional, so as to mislead.  I think that's not fair.  It looks more to me like RedShirtNo5 took the listing from the d20 SRD verbatim, which does not contain your passage of context.




My error, then.  Another case of mistaking the SRD for the whole rules, I suppose.   

However, it seems strange to me that, having been given the additional material from the book, one wouldn't make use of it.  RedShirtNo5 is correct that the SRD rules follow from the context material; he is wrong if assumes the context flows from the rules rather than the other way around.

I.e., in 0D&D through 3.5 D&D, context says what the rules describe, and then gives rules that are intended to be applied within that context.  This is one good reason why, when a question arises, it is almost always better to go back to the book.  The context is generally not part of the SRD!



pemerton said:


> There's nothing tacit about the "admission". From the time some of the rules details of 4e started to be announced I have stated frequently and forcefully that it's a very different game from either AD&D or 3E. If it wasn't, I'd have no interest in playing it.




You just took a huge jump in my estimation, Sir.

But when you say,



> If you think that an encounter or scene based game makes forewarning or player choice impossible, I think you have a strange conception of such a game. In a by-the-book Forge-style encounter based game, it is entirely the choices of the players that drive the sequences of scenes/encounters. And given this, the forewarning is ample.




I would argue instead that this is a strange thing to be calling an encounter or scene based game (FORGE-speak aside).  Or, at least, a game in which the salient field of action is the encounter, as you suggested.  If player choices drive the sequence of scenes/encounters, I would argue that the salient field of action is the narrative (or the sequence of scenes/encounters, if you prefer), not the encounter.

This would make the game similar to, say, Cubicle 7's _*Doctor Who*_ RPG.  Except, of course, that what one does in one encounter may well cause changes in subsequent encounters in that game, at least.

A game where the salient field of action is the encounter would contain a number of encounters, which the group may have a choice in the order they are played, but where the framework is so disconnected that there is nothing whatsoever to aid them in determining what choice should be made.  The result is either a series of plotted encounters, or a series of essentially random encounters, which the PCs cannot alter prior to engagement in any way (either by their own preperation or by changing the circumstances of the encounter itself).

As written, a number of modules display this sort of frame, including some of the older modules -- even some which are sometimes considered "classics".  I am sure, if you are familiar with early or current D&D, you can think of a few.  

That can be fun in a fast-paced game, if that is what you are into, but on the whole I think a more robust framework makes for a better game.  YMMV and all that.



RC


----------



## RedShirtNo5.1 (Sep 2, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If you don't see "any indication...in the rules" that "it requires both eyes to actively meet and acknowledge the presence of the other" you are simply failing to read the rules.




1.  Since an ethereal creature can be affected by a gaze attack, it is clearly not a requirement of the rules for "both eyes to actively meet and acknowledge the presence of the other".  That the flavor text gives an example in which eyes do actively meet does not negate the counter-example.

2.  Since an ethereal creature can be affected by a gaze attack, I conclude that, within the fictional game space, whatever the supernatural mechanism that is taking place, is does not require that the creature with the gaze attack even be aware of its opponent.  For the fictional game space, I typically describe the creature as having glowing or sparkling eyes, and all that is required is that an opponent look into the eyes.  This is completely possible for a hiding opponent.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 2, 2010)

RedShirtNo5.1 said:


> Since an ethereal creature can be affected by a gaze attack, it is clearly not a requirement of the rules for "both eyes to actively meet and acknowledge the presence of the other".  That the flavor text gives an example in which eyes do actively meet does not negate the counter-example.




Likewise, the existence of an exception to the general description does not imply that the general description itself is wrong.  

In earlier D&D, it was specified that certain gaze attacks functioned in the "near ethereal", and that creatures with those attacks could *see into as well as be seen from* that plane.  This was specifically a function of a creature being able to meet the gaze of an ethereal being.

It seems far more likely to me that, in 3e, the designers considered that, were invisibility a fact (due to etherealness or otherwise), there exists a unique situation in which I can both meet your gaze and you not be aware of it.  

However, that does not mean that, where invisibility (due to etherealness or otherwise) is not a factor that I can both meet your gaze and you not be aware of it.  AFAICT, invisibility and etherealness are not real-world concerns.  It is not unreasonable for the designers to have assumed that most of the people reading the manual would be somewhat familiar with meeting a gaze.

One may argue that 3e offers an absence of information on why ethereal creatures are subject to gaze attacks, but an absence of information merely means that any consistent interpretation is equally valid.

I.e., if "must meet gaze" is a house rule, so is MrMyth's interpretation.  It is certainly not a case of "MrMyth has the correct rules interpretation" .... or of "RedShirtNo5.1 has the correct rules interpretation" because he happens to have the same interpretation as MrMyth.

Finally, there is no consistent interpretation of the RAW that I am aware of which negates both that the creature's attack must be active ("Gaze Attack" refers to the creature's active gaze, as described in the book) and must be seen by the victim.  Gaze attacks eminate from the creature's eyes (hence "Gaze Attack" and not "Face Attack").  The victim must meet that creature's gaze to be affected, by the book, and so there must be a line of sight from the victim's eyes to the Gaze Attack monster's eyes.

And please note that, according to RAW, an invisible or ethereal creature is not affected automatically by meeting the attacker's gaze; the attack must be "turned on".  The gaze must be active.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 2, 2010)

BTW, I hope that, for consistency, those of you who rule that gaze attacks don't actually require a gaze to be met also allow breath weapons when it is impossible to take a breath.  I mean, I don't think that the rules *actually say *you have to be able to breathe to use a breath weapon......

In general, I would say that, given more than one possible reading of a rule, if you choose the reading that least favours the players, especially if it flies in the face of common sense and common usage, that is bad GMing.  

It might be an error; all GMs are guilty of giving a subpar performance from time to time.  

If that is one's _modus operandi_, however, I would say that person was also a bad GM.  YMMV on that, of course, but I certainly wouldn't be interested in what that person was bringing to the table.


RC


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 2, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> It isn't about them seeking him out and becoming heroes by proving themselves against the bad guys of the setting, it is about them exploring their own personal stories as they connect to the plot of the game.



"Proving themselves against the bad guys of the setting" in no way precludes "exploring their personal stories."

The difference is that the adventurers' "personal stories" are a result of what happens in actual play rather than a meta-duscussion. Develop-in-play accomplishes the same thing that develop-at-start does out out-of-game, but I prefer DIP because for me it's more organic and - dare I say it? I dare, I dare! - *real* because it comes out of shared events passed through the mechanics of the game and experienced first-hand by the players and their characters.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 2, 2010)

Interesting that more DMs prefer not to use it than players.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 3, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> BTW, I hope that, for consistency, those of you who rule that gaze attacks don't actually require a gaze to be met also allow breath weapons when it is impossible to take a breath.  I mean, I don't think that the rules *actually say *you have to be able to breathe to use a breath weapon......



Fair enough, but in all the playing and DMing I've done I don't think this breath weapon question has ever come up*.  The gaze issue, however, has arisen more than once.

Come to think of it, it'd have to be a pretty bizarre situation to have a breath-weapon-wielding creature end up in combat but unable to breathe.

* - ah, but thinking further, yes it has!  A party I was running was fighting an *enormous* Green Dragon; it killed their Illusionist in one bite and tried to swallow her, but she got stuck in its throat.  Her death thus saved the party from a pretty serious ass-kicking, as by getting stuck there she negated its three best weapons: spells (it couldn't speak), bite (its mouth was jammed half-open), and breath (she was plugging up the plumbing where the chlorine gas came from).

Lan-"so that's once in almost 30 years...not a common issue"-efan


----------



## pemerton (Sep 3, 2010)

Lanefan (or is it still pemerton?), that was a good war story. Of course I still can't give XP at this time!


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Skills are good in a game because it lets the player that doesn't posses the same intellect and abilities do things he ordinarily wouldn't- just like combat.



I agree, but you didn't say anything at all about skills; you said if your character has a high attribute like Intelligence it should make it easier to solve puzzles.

And it does, but not as directly as you seem to imply. The use of _character_ skills is still dependent on _player_ skill. 

For me, at least, that's a good thing.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 3, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Is this because the scenes are determined by player choices? And are those choices made during char gen, or play? Or perhaps both.



"Yes" to the first question, and -as you say - "both" to the second.

Chargen choices are going to have a big influence on the initial encounters, but as the game unfolds the subsequent choices that the players make become more significant.



Doug McCrae said:


> I can see how the medusa encounter could be pre-determined because, say, one player has decided his father was petrified by her. The needs of story then pretty much demand an encounter with the medusa at some point, or at least some sort of resolution of the matter.



Right. In my current game, one of the PCs is a drow sorcerer demonskin adept who is part of a drow secret society that serves Corellon and wants to overthrow Lolth in order ultimately to reunite the sundered branches of elvenkind. Around the campfire he sings songs in elven remembering the times the elves were all one under the stars and by the shores of the Feywild.

Some of this was built into the PC at character generation. Other details, including the existence of the secret society and its relationship to surface elves, have been built up over the course of play.

Now late epic tier is a long way off, so it is by no means guaranteed that a confrontation with Lolth is coming. But just from what I've said it's pretty obvious that it's a possibility. If the player instead decides to try and _avoid_ Lolth, or to appease her, that would be a pretty big change in direction which has nothing to do with "skillful play" and everything to do with where the player wants the story, and his PC, to go. And if combat with Lolth does come, for the reasons I said in my response upthread to Raven Crowking, I think that SSSoD, poison that causes ongoing damage, etc will play out better than SoD.



Doug McCrae said:


> D&D characters traditionally start off motivated only by money, magic items and level ups.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Ofc the Conan-style, money seeking approach is not the only way to play D&D. Dragonlance is a strong reaction against this



I haven't run or played in a game like this for over 20 years. Even where individual PCs have been little more than mercenaries, they've been embedded in parties where enough of the party is motivated by some ingame loyalty or similar concern (like your Dragonlance example) that the pure mercenary style of play has not been there. There have been occasions where PCs and parties who have higher loyalties have found themselves, by dint of circumstances, reduced to mercenary-type work (generally tomb robbing) but this has always had an element of self-consciousness about it, and sometimes even has led to a "What have I become?" moment as part of the game.

That's not to say that my players don't like items and level up, or that there is no gamist tendency in the games that I run. But there is a game/metagame divide at work. The gamism doesn't filter down to be the principal motivation for the PCs.



Doug McCrae said:


> Only as the game goes on would arch nemeses, such as Obmi, appear. Once such a nemesis does turn up though, one could say the game changes and a future encounter becomes fixed.





The Shaman said:


> "Proving themselves against the bad guys of the setting" in no way precludes "exploring their personal stories."
> 
> The difference is that the adventurers' "personal stories" are a result of what happens in actual play rather than a meta-duscussion. Develop-in-play accomplishes the same thing that develop-at-start does out out-of-game, but I prefer DIP because for me it's more organic and - dare I say it? I dare, I dare! - *real* because it comes out of shared events passed through the mechanics of the game and experienced first-hand by the players and their characters.



This reminds me of a discussion in the other long thread!

I agree with Doug that an exploration game can turn into a more encounter/theme/PCs-emotionally-embedded-in-gameworld driven game over time. I've run games that are a bit like this. And I'm still a big fan of "developed in play". It's just that these days - since I learned that it can be done, and that "metagaming" is not a synonym for "cheating" - I like "developed at start" too, so that the play that I enjoy gets going even earlier.

It's goes without saying that others - like The Shaman - might legitimately prefer a different approach to play. But I will rise to the bait and say that, while I think I'll concede the "organic" point, I don't think I'll concede the "real" point. Because a players playing out of a relationship or some history that was developed at start, when done well, can make it as real as if it emerged purely organically out of _nothing but_ the course of play.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 3, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I would argue instead that this is a strange thing to be calling an encounter or scene based game (FORGE-speak aside).  Or, at least, a game in which the salient field of action is the encounter, as you suggested.  If player choices drive the sequence of scenes/encounters, I would argue that the salient field of action is the narrative (or the sequence of scenes/encounters, if you prefer), not the encounter.
> 
> This would make the game similar to, say, Cubicle 7's _*Doctor Who*_ RPG.  Except, of course, that what one does in one encounter may well cause changes in subsequent encounters in that game, at least.



I don't know the Doctor Who game you refer to, but I agree that in a player driven game of the sort I'm describing it _has_ to be the case that what one does in one encounter can cause changes in subsequent encounters.

The nature of those changes, though, I think may tend to be different from in what I am calling exploration-based play (and I'm hoping to pick up under that description a fairly standard non-Dragonlancish AD&D, and Classic Traveller, as paradigms). In an exploration-type game, if in encounter _A I get lucky and kill the guards before they can retreat, then in encounter B_ the number of foes is reduced. Thus, trying to get in early, stealthily, cleverly etc is all part of the game (I think of this as one aspect of Gygaxian skillful play). Burgling the Medusa while she's out shopping would also be an example of the sort of encounter-changing dynamics that operate in this sort of game. The relationships between encounters, which the players affect through their PCs' choices, are primarily if not exclusively ingame causal relationships.

In the sort of game I called encounter/scene based, ingame causality of the sort just described is less important. As I said earlier, it _is_  important to maintain a consistent gameworld - but if a satisfyingly dramatic encounter requires that encounter _B_ have at least 10 foes, then if the players kill 2 guards earlier on before they can retreat it is legitimate as GM to replace them, provided there is a coherent story to be told about where the extra bodies came from. (What counts as coherent here will, of course, depend in part on what the players already know.) But it's not legitimate to make those sorts of changes to the encounter in such a way as to undo the signficance of what the PCs achieved. So, for example, suppose the PCs (maybe with a skill challenge as the resolution mechanism) persuaded the guards to surrender and go off and become peaceful forest dwellers. It's not legitimate for the GM to just ignore this and have the freed guards start massacring the first peasants they come across. So the players might still have a tough challenge ahead of them in encounter B, but they have secured their reputation as the converters of evil henchmen to the ways of peace. And _this_ should affect the dynamics - social, thematic etc - of subsequent encounters.

The sort of play I'm describing here is (as best I can tell) affirmatively advocated in the rulebooks for HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, The Dying Earth and The Burning Wheel. It is also canvassed in the DMG 2 for 4e, although not fully worked out in terms of its integration into particular aspects of the 4e mechanics (and in particular the combat/skill challenge interface). Unsurprisingly, that part of DMG 2 was written by Robin Laws, a co-author of HeroWars/Quest and The Dying Earth.

I call it encounter/scene based because Maelstrom expressly presents _the scene_ as the unit of play, and in 4e the comparable units of play are known as challenges or encounters. Of course in 4e as in the other games I mentioned there will be moments of exploration that link the scenes/encounters, but those moments are in a certain sense subordinate. I think it is Vincent Baker (Dogs in the Vineyard) who coined "Say yes or roll the dice!" In the sort of game I am describing, when the dice start rolling then we are generally in an encounter or challenge of some sort. And the preceding moments when "yes" was said are not unimportant, but they are a type of prelude to the action. (In fact in 4e and in HeroQuest there are some dice rolls that aren't full-fledged encounters - in HeroQuest these would be at least some simple contests, and in 4e these would be single skill checks that aren't part of either a skill challenge or a combat encounter.)

And as I said upthread, I think 4e-style SSSoD suits this sort of play better, because it locates the relevant choices, and the associated action resolution, at the point of culmination rather than in the preliminary stages.

(Interestingly, in some approaches to this sort of play, you could try to build prior actions into the resolution at the culmination - for example, in a skill challenge a player might make a Streetwise check to avoid being petrified not as part of the PC's immediate ingame interaction with the medusa's lair under the city, but to reflect prior knowledge and wits acquired by talking to the thieves who use the undercity for their smuggling. Using skill checks in this sort of rather metagamey way is not officially canvassed in the 4e rules, however.)



Raven Crowking said:


> A game where the salient field of action is the encounter would contain a number of encounters, which the group may have a choice in the order they are played, but where the framework is so disconnected that there is nothing whatsoever to aid them in determining what choice should be made.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I agree with your last sentence. If my options were this sort of game or Talisman, I can see that it might be a toss-up, but I wouldn't be interested in this sort of game for serious play.

In this sort of game, the sense in which the encounter is the salient field of action is very different from what I had in mind - as I hope I've made clear (probably at excessive length!) above.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 3, 2010)

pemerton said:


> This reminds me of a discussion in the other long thread!



The discussion involves many of the same themes - as well as many of the same players - so a bit of convergence isn't too surprising.

And with that in mind, I have a reply to the rest of your post, but I'm going to post it in the other thread since it has more to do with player-driven play than save-or-die.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 3, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> And with that in mind, I have a reply to the rest of your post, but I'm going to post it in the other thread since it has more to do with player-driven play than save-or-die.



I did the same thing.

Lanefan


----------



## liza2010 (Sep 3, 2010)

Well as player i don't think too much when any of my player die. Its just a game beyond of real life.......
So don't worry and play only games


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 3, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Lan-"so that's once in almost 30 years...not a common issue"-efan




It doesn't have to be a common issue.  Looking at a similar issue, where things are more clear-cut, can often throw light on a question.  For instance, imagine that the illusionist, although still in the dragon's throat, was also ethereal.  Suddenly, the breath weapon, spells, etc., work.  

Does this mean that they work whenever something is stuck in the dragon's throat?  Obviously not!



pemerton said:


> I don't know the Doctor Who game you refer to, but I agree that in a player driven game of the sort I'm describing it _has_ to be the case that what one does in one encounter can cause changes in subsequent encounters.




Then, as I said above, I would say that the narrative, not the encounter/scene, is the salient field of action.  

The nature of the changes is different (IMHO) because the narrative is, in effect, the game world -- things can therefore be changed only on the basis of narrative continuity.

Nothing wrong with games where this is the case.  Like I said, I rather like the Cubicle 7 Doctor Who rpg design (although still yet to actually play it!  Argh!).



> I agree with your last sentence. If my options were this sort of game or Talisman, I can see that it might be a toss-up, but I wouldn't be interested in this sort of game for serious play.
> 
> In this sort of game, the sense in which the encounter is the salient field of action is very different from what I had in mind - as I hope I've made clear (probably at excessive length!) above.




AFAICT, we don't disagree here.  This seems to be a semantics/terminology/communication issue.


RC


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 3, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> However, that does not mean that, where invisibility (due to etherealness or otherwise) is not a factor that I can both meet your gaze and you not be aware of it.




So, just to confirm - if a creature with a gaze attacks glances into a corner in which an invisible or ethereal PC stands, you accept that there is a chance that he can meet their gaze without being aware of their presence... however, if he instead glances into a corner shrouded with shadows in which a PC is simply hidden, you do not believe it is possible for him to meet their gaze without being aware of their presence? 



Raven Crowking said:


> Gaze attacks eminate from the creature's eyes (hence "Gaze Attack" and not "Face Attack"). The victim must meet that creature's gaze to be affected, by the book, and so there must be a line of sight from the victim's eyes to the Gaze Attack monster's eyes.




That's been pretty much my point all along. The rules seem to indicate that what triggers these attacks is gazing upon a creature's eyes. You can see someone's eyes, and draw LoS to them, while hidden - the fact they aren't looking directly at you (or don't notice you even if they _are_) doesn't mean that their eyes are not in sight, or that by successfully hiding, you have ensured they are automatically considered to be turned around and facing in another direction.

Again, just to confirm - do you believe that a hidden character standing in the shadows is incapable of looking upon someone's face, and seeing their features, including their eyes? Or, by virtue of being hidden, do you feel they are inherently unable to see someone's eyes?


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 3, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> "Proving themselves against the bad guys of the setting" in no way precludes "exploring their personal stories."
> 
> The difference is that the adventurers' "personal stories" are a result of what happens in actual play rather than a meta-duscussion. Develop-in-play accomplishes the same thing that develop-at-start does out out-of-game, but I prefer DIP because for me it's more organic and - dare I say it? I dare, I dare! - *real* because it comes out of shared events passed through the mechanics of the game and experienced first-hand by the players and their characters.




Sure, that's a fair preference. I'm not saying there aren't other styles of play that people can prefer. But for myself, and I suspect for the other poster that the point originated with, having a level of personal connection to the plot makes it a lot easier to build upon that character's own story. 

That said, I don't think there is anything that makes it a more 'real' sort of development. Either way, the story will be as organic and shared as much as the party makes it. 

In any case, in my experience, having elements of the plot tied to characters makes it a lot easier for players to become invested in the game and want to indulge in the sort of development and roleplaying of those elements. That doesn't mean you can't do so without such connections! But in the games I've played in and games I've run, I think the most memorable parties and adventures have been ones where the characters themselves have more central ties to the narrative.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 3, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> So, just to confirm - if a creature with a gaze attacks glances into a corner in which an invisible or ethereal PC stands, you accept that there is a chance that he can meet their gaze without being aware of their presence... however, if he instead glances into a corner shrouded with shadows in which a PC is simply hidden, you do not believe it is possible for him to meet their gaze without being aware of their presence?






Thankfully, that's not the situation being discussed here at all.  Nor is it the "by the book" rules interpretation in the example posted.

In the example posted, the DM rules that the rogue is subject to the bodak's gaze attack simply because he looked in the window.  If you agree that, by the book, the bodak's gaze attack is triggered by "gazing upon a creature's eyes" then the ruling being objected to (gazing upon the creature = gazing upon the creature's eyes) is, by your admission, not RAW.

It is a houserule, at best.

But, there are yet two more factors.  One is that the gaze attack is not, by the book, "always on".  The creature must be using the gaze attack.  

The other is that, by the description in the book, the trigger is not "gazing upon a creature's eyes" but rather "meeting the creature's gaze".  These are not the same thing.  Although one must gaze upon a creature's eyes to meet its gaze, meeting its gaze also requires that the creature is looking in the same direction as you -- IOW it is also looking toward your eyes.

So, sure, a hidden character standing in the shadows is capable of looking upon someone's face, and seeing their features, including their eyes.  But assuming a 100% of doing so while they are also looking at you seems a bit far-fetched to me.

And, if the character is not completely concealed (or invisible), that would seem to me to end his hiding IMHO as well.


RC


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 3, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Thankfully, that's not the situation being discussed here at all. Nor is it the "by the book" rules interpretation in the example posted.




In what way do you find it isn't a "by the book" rules interpretation? 



Raven Crowking said:


> In the example posted, the DM rules that the rogue is subject to the bodak's gaze attack simply because he looked in the window. If you agree that, by the book, the bodak's gaze attack is triggered by "gazing upon a creature's eyes" then the ruling being objected to (gazing upon the creature = gazing upon the creature's eyes) is, by your admission, not RAW.
> 
> It is a houserule, at best.




A _houserule_? There are parts of this discussion that might veer into houserule territory, but this certainly isn't one of them. 

We're talking about the DM deciding that someone looking in a window at a creature inside is able to see that creature's face. You truly believe that deciding what position a creature might be facing is _houseruling_? Isn't that, rather, a basic part of DMing? Deciding where creatures stand in relation to the environment around them?

There are various ways a DM could handle it, sure. Some DMs might have it all elaborately mapped out in advance. Some DMs might assign a chance to it and roll. Other DMs might make a decision based on common sense - I suspect that is what happened here. The Bodak was in the back of the room watching the doorway. It had no reason to be hiding its face or turned away. The rogue looked into through a window on the side of the room, and thus had a clear view of the Bodak and its features. 

And you feel that decision was a houserule? 

You feel that a ruling that gazing upon the front of creature involves gazing upon its eyes is not RAW? 

Keep in mind that avoiding a creature's gaze is, by the RAW, not an easy task. Someone _actively trying to look away_ still has a 50% chance of it. So where does it 'by my admission, go against RAW' to rule that someone who is not attempting to avoid doing so, and is in a position to look upon the creature, is likely to see its face? 



Raven Crowking said:


> One is that the gaze attack is not, by the book, "always on". The creature must be using the gaze attack.




I'm not quite sure why this keeps getting brought up. Yes, some creatures can turn their gaze off. A malevolent undead with a hatred of all living things, specifically created and bound to guard the location from intruders, isn't likely to do so. Could there be reasons why it would? Maybe, but there are also plenty of reasons why it wouldn't, and that seems likely to be the case here. 



Raven Crowking said:


> The other is that, by the description in the book, the trigger is not "gazing upon a creature's eyes" but rather "meeting the creature's gaze". These are not the same thing. Although one must gaze upon a creature's eyes to meet its gaze, meeting its gaze also requires that the creature is looking in the same direction as you -- IOW it is also looking toward your eyes.
> 
> So, sure, a hidden character standing in the shadows is capable of looking upon someone's face, and seeing their features, including their eyes. But assuming a 100% of doing so while they are also looking at you seems a bit far-fetched to me.




Dude, it was many, many, _many_ pages ago when I specifically said that it wasn't unreasonable if a DM wanted to come up with a percentage chance as to whether the Bodak happened to be looking in the right direction. What I objected to was the argument that a person successfully hiding influenced what direction he was looking in at all. 

Just to confirm, it does sound like you are now retracting your former arguments? You now are willing to accept that a character can be hidden and still view the features of the creatures they are hidden from? 



Raven Crowking said:


> And, if the character is not completely concealed (or invisible), that would seem to me to end his hiding IMHO as well.




Isn't that what a Spot check is for? If a rogue is successfully hidden in the shadows, and someone glances in their direction, if that person's Spot check doesn't beat the rogue's Hide check, I'm pretty sure that means the rogue is still successfully concealed. Deciding otherwise is, again, getting into houserule territory.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 3, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Isn't that what a Spot check is for? If a rogue is successfully hidden in the shadows, and someone glances in their direction, if that person's Spot check doesn't beat the rogue's Hide check, I'm pretty sure that means the rogue is still successfully concealed. Deciding otherwise is, again, getting into houserule territory.




Part of the problem here may be a bit of semantics.  The difference between not being seen and not being _noticed_.

Modern camouflage is a great example here - the point of camo is not to keep light from your body from reflecting off you and hitting the viewer's eyes.  The point is to make it so that when that light does hit the viewer's eyes, they don't catch on to what they're really seeing.







You can see the soldier, but you might not notice him.  You can imagine that soldier's face, covered in paint, as hard to notice as his body.  His eyes might be open, but you don't notice them...

Can you "meet his gaze" or not?

As often as not, and argument over whether something is a houserule or not misses the point.  If the rules are not explicit on a matter, then _everybody_ need to houserule - and the question of what to do is a reasonable thing to discuss amongst us.


----------



## RedShirtNo5.1 (Sep 3, 2010)

I don't think anyone has been arguing this:


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 3, 2010)

Upfront, yes, there has been a modification of my original position.  Absolutely.  Any rational person, faced by evidence that a current position is wrong, is going to modify it. 



MrMyth said:


> A _houserule_? There are parts of this discussion that might veer into houserule territory, but this certainly isn't one of them.




You may have specifically said _many_ pages ago when "that it wasn't unreasonable if a DM wanted to come up with a percentage chance as to whether the Bodak happened to be looking in the right direction", but you referred to that as a "houserule" and said that the DM shouldn't be blamed for following the RAW.

The RAW does not say that a rogue looking into a room will have a clear view of a bodak's features, and that the bodak will be gazing at him.  Nor does the rogue have 100% concealment when hidden (or he would need no Hide check), so the caveat that a 100% concealed rogue (i.e., invisible or the same as) might potentially "meet the gaze" of a bodak without the bodak being aware of it is not applicable in this situation.

Yes, I acknowledge that a 100% concealed rogue (i.e., invisible or the same as) might potentially "meet the gaze" of a bodak without the bodak being aware of it is not applicable in this situation.  No, I did not consider that before it was brought up (although, I will point out, I don't consider it particularly relevant now).  Yes, that is an alteration of my earlier stated position.  No, that alteration is not relevant to this situation.

Whatever method the DM uses to "deciding what position a creature might be facing" is _houseruling_ unless there is something in the RAW to make that determination.  Houseruling is a rather basic part of DMing.  

Houseruling poorly (making arbitrary decisions that screw the players) is bad DMing, as in the example case.  Houseruling poorly on a consistent basis would certainly make me regard one as a bad DM.



Umbran said:


> Part of the problem here may be a bit of semantics.  The difference between not being seen and not being _noticed_.




If one takes your example of modern camouflage, you will note that the gentleman is specifically not looking at the camera.  

Having spent my time in the military, I can tell you that we are prone to notice certain shapes and patterns.  The actual the point of camo is to break up the apparent shape of the object or person, so that it "blends into" background shapes that you might not notice.

Eyes are something that we tend to notice.  If you are looking into a pair of eyes, and that pair of eyes is looking at you, there is an overwhelming chance that you will become instantly aware of the other person, if you were not already aware.  A large part of successfully hiding is to avert the face and avoid the desire to look directly at the potential observers.

(This effect can be noticed with images, but it is far more effective with an actual hider and observer....Even in the dark, in Basic Training, when camo was being demonstrated, I was able to notice a soldier in camo who had successfully hidden when he looked toward me.  In the dark.  In the forest.  And his face was covered in camo paint as well.  It literally felt like a "snap" of awareness that he was there.)



> If the rules are not explicit on a matter, then _everybody_ need to houserule - and the question of what to do is a reasonable thing to discuss amongst us.




Yup.



RC


----------



## Scribble (Sep 3, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> I agree, but you didn't say anything at all about skills; you said if your character has a high attribute like Intelligence it should make it easier to solve puzzles.
> 
> And it does, but not as directly as you seem to imply. The use of _character_ skills is still dependent on _player_ skill.
> 
> For me, at least, that's a good thing.




Yes I agree with that, I wasn't trying to imply what you think I was.  Guess I implied incorrectly. 

My comment was more directed at people who've expressed an attitude of skills replace "player skill."

Like, instead of a disarm skill, the player should come up with a "smart way" to disable a trap.

Or instead of diplomacy, the player should role play the exchange (without any skill support.)


----------



## RedShirtNo5.1 (Sep 3, 2010)

Umbran said:


> You can see the soldier, but you might not notice him. You can imagine that soldier's face, covered in paint, as hard to notice as his body. His eyes might be open, but you don't notice them...
> 
> Can you "meet his gaze" or not?



Or the old fashioned take a painting and cut holes where the eyes are, and look out.



> So, sure, a hidden character standing in the shadows is capable of looking upon someone's face, and seeing their features, including their eyes. But assuming a 100% of doing so while they are also looking at you seems a bit far-fetched to me.



You mean a 100% of remaining hidden?  Since if they are looking then the chance of seeing their eyes would increase.  

You could approach it as "You made your hide check, so the bodak doesn't happen to glance in your direction.  Yet.   You don't have to make a save this round."  That's a consistent interpretation of what is going on in the gameworld.  I'll just say that I don't think it is consistent with the rules.  If being hidden reduced the likelihood of needing to make a saving throw against a gaze attack, that is sufficiently important that it would have been included in the rules, and is inconguous with the fact that other ways to reduce the likelihood of making a saving thow are described.  IMO, YMMV, etc. 

You could also approach it as "You made your hide check.  The bodak glances through the window but doesn't notice you.  But since you didn't turn your eyes away, you get a good look into its eyes.  Make a saving throw."  This is consistent with the example, with the rules text, and with the game world.  IMO, YMMV, etc.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 3, 2010)

My mileage varies quite a bit, thank you.

I don't see how "You made your hide check, so the bodak doesn't happen to glance in your direction. Yet. You don't have to make a save this round." is in any way inconsistent with the rules.

I suppose, though, that they could have described Gaze Attacks better.  I mean, after all, the most rules-y version of D&D to date (unless 4e has passed it now?) could have been even more rules-y, I suppose.  

If nothing else, this discussion is reminding me why I no longer play 3e.  


RC


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 4, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> You may have specifically said _many_ pages ago when "that it wasn't unreasonable if a DM wanted to come up with a percentage chance as to whether the Bodak happened to be looking in the right direction", but you referred to that as a "houserule" and said that the DM shouldn't be blamed for following the RAW.




Yes. If an adventure involves a Bodak sitting and staring at a door, and someone peers in through a window with a clear view of the Bodak's face, saying, "There is a 30% chance the Bodak is looking away at that moment" is a houserule - it is a new rule invented by the DM. It is not something found in the books themselves. 



Raven Crowking said:


> The RAW does not say that a rogue looking into a room will have a clear view of a bodak's features, and that the bodak will be gazing at him. Nor does the rogue have 100% concealment when hidden (or he would need no Hide check), so the caveat that a 100% concealed rogue (i.e., invisible or the same as) might potentially "meet the gaze" of a bodak without the bodak being aware of it is not applicable in this situation.






Raven Crowking said:


> Whatever method the DM uses to "deciding what position a creature might be facing" is _houseruling_ unless there is something in the RAW to make that determination. Houseruling is a rather basic part of DMing.




I don't think that word means what you think it means. 

A DM who designs an encounter, and decides what positions creatures will be in when the encounter starts (or are likely to be on, based on whatever variables desired) isn't houseruling. He is creating an encounter. He is running the game. This is, yes, a basic part of DMing. 

It is also completely different from houseruling, which I've always understood to mean coming up with a new rule or changing some default rule of the game to better fit the group or the DM's style of play. 



Raven Crowking said:


> Houseruling poorly (making arbitrary decisions that screw the players) is bad DMing, as in the example case. Houseruling poorly on a consistent basis would certainly make me regard one as a bad DM.




So, designing an encounter that is consistent with the creature's place in the game is an arbitrary decision to screw the players? 

The Bodak was created and bound by an evil wizard to guard his stuff. It was in the back of the room, watching the doorway. A rogue looks in the window that has a clear view of its position, and thus (if it is facing forward) of its face.

At what point was a houserule made? 

The DM is making decisions informed by the rules and the logical consistency of the scenario before him. Where is the bad DMing? 



Raven Crowking said:


> Yes, I acknowledge that a 100% concealed rogue (i.e., invisible or the same as) might potentially "meet the gaze" of a bodak without the bodak being aware of it is not applicable in this situation. No, I did not consider that before it was brought up (although, I will point out, I don't consider it particularly relevant now). Yes, that is an alteration of my earlier stated position. No, that alteration is not relevant to this situation.




Again, just trying to summarize your overall position here, since it has shifted a bit. 

You feel that if a Bodak happened to glance in the position of someone hiding in the shadows, such that the Bodak's eyes were visible to the person in the shadows, this means that unless that person was in full concealment, the Bodak would now automatically notice them?

Is this a correct summation of your viewpoint? If not, would you be able to try and clarify what part of it is inaccurate, just so I've got a better sense of where we have common ground and where our views are differing?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 4, 2010)

You seem to desire to make my position whatever best suits your argument, MrMyth.  

if a Bodak happened to glance in the position of someone hiding in the shadows, such that the Bodak's eyes were visible to the person in the shadows, that would not be the same as their gaze meeting.

If the Bodak happened to look directly into the eyes of someone hiding in the shadows, while that person was looking at the Bodak's eyes, their gaze would meet.

But I think I was clear about what the difference is IMHO, and I think we are through here.  If you post something that I believe is substantive, I'll reply.  Otherwise, you may assume that my position has not changed.


RC


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 4, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> It doesn't have to be a common issue.  Looking at a similar issue, where things are more clear-cut, can often throw light on a question.  For instance, imagine that the illusionist, although still in the dragon's throat, was also ethereal.  Suddenly, the breath weapon, spells, etc., work.



True, but something that happens once in 30 years is not something I'm going to bother thinking about for any length of time.  If and when it ever happens again I'll wing it just like I did that time, completely dependent on circumstance and what makes sense at the moment.

Never mind that an ethereal illusionist is not going to get into the dragon's throat in the first place as the dragon could not have bitten her... 

Lanefan


----------



## BryonD (Sep 4, 2010)

There is certainly a lack of depth to gaze attacks (among other things) in both 3E and in 4E.

Clearly there is a distinction in concept between an active attack and a passive effect.  Yet this distinction is not truly supported in the mechanics.  To me it is not a problem because the adaptability is there and it always seemed obvious to me that a good DM would use common sense and the nature of the individual creature to make things "correct" on a case by case basis.

To me, consistency from Medusa to Medusa is important, but a unified consistent mechanic between Medusa (Medusae??), Bodaks, and Basilisks (etc) is not at all needed and further should be actively avoided when it gets in the way of the narrative role of the creature.

I can get the idea of wanting unification and across the board consistency.  But again, to my preference, this is a piece of the distinction between roleplaying on top of a glorified board game and a storytelling roleplaying experience supported by a healthy mechanical model foundation.

Edit: changed capitalization


----------



## BryonD (Sep 4, 2010)

Another spin on that point: Any system that tries to really cover every situation like this is, first of all, doomed to failure for 90% of the audience, at best.

The presumption of a competent DM is mandatory for a top tier RPG.
Given the choice between taking this DM for granted and leaning on that in the rules and trying to cover everything in a massive bloat of spaghetti code mechanics, the first is a good plan and the latter is to be avoided at all costs.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 4, 2010)

BryonD said:


> To me, consistency from Medusa to Medusa is important, but a unified consistent mechanic between Medusa (Medusae??), bodaks, and basilisks (etc) is not at all needed and further should be actively avoided when it gets in the way of the narrative role of the creature.



In D&D, you don't capitalize medusa. It's the name of a type of creature, not a unique individual, and as such it's not as proper noun.

End of pedantry.


----------



## Abraxas (Sep 4, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Yes. If an adventure involves a Bodak sitting and staring at a door, and someone peers in through a window with a clear view of the Bodak's face, saying, "There is a 30% chance the Bodak is looking away at that moment" is a houserule - it is a new rule invented by the DM. It is not something found in the books themselves.



This isn't a house rule - its the set up of the encounter as determined by the DM. It's no different than numerous adventures where there is X chance that a particular creature is in a particular place. A house rule would be that for _all_ gaze attacks roll d% - 30 or less and your are possibly affected - roll a save.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 4, 2010)

This thread needs more actual play examples.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 4, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> You seem to desire to make my position whatever best suits your argument, MrMyth.




Or, alternatively, I'm trying to figure out exactly what your position is, rather than spend time discussing points that aren't actually relevant. So, my appreciation for the clarification below, as I think that does clear things up for me. My appreciation as well for stepping back from the other parts of the argument, which I'll take as acknowledgement that your claim about "choosing the position of a creature in a room" being an "arbitrary houserule to screw PCs" was incorrect. 



Raven Crowking said:


> if a Bodak happened to glance in the position of someone hiding in the shadows, such that the Bodak's eyes were visible to the person in the shadows, that would not be the same as their gaze meeting.
> 
> If the Bodak happened to look directly into the eyes of someone hiding in the shadows, while that person was looking at the Bodak's eyes, their gaze would meet.




Ok, this does clear things up a bit, and does seem to be the core of our disagreement. It seems to come down to two elements that I disagree with (and, if this are incorrect statements of your argument, feel free to let me know): 

1) A gaze attack is only effective if the gazer and the gazee have their gazes actively meet. Simply viewing the eyes of the gazer is not enough to trigger the gaze attack. 

2) If someone is hiding, but no in total concealment, and a creature looks at their precise position directly enough for their gazes to meet, this will break their hiding. 

The problem with the first point is that it isn't what the rules say. Glancing at the 3.0 MM, page 8: "A gaze attack takes effect when opponents look at the creature's eyes." Same thing in the 3.5 MM, page 309. The DMG doesn't specify that, but instead is even more general, simply saying each creature within range of a gaze attack must make a save - which seems more a combat relevant description."

By the rules, if you can see a creature's eyes, you are vulnerable to its gaze attack. To claim otherwise is a house rule - that's all I've been trying to claim. If you find it fits a more mythic image or otherwise to have some sort of direct connection when eyes meet, fair enough, and feel free to run it that way in your games. But the rules support the DM in saying that all it requires is looking upon the creature's eyes, and I don't see that as unreasonable in terms of either flavor or common sense. 

The problem with the second point is, again, that it isn't something in the rules. Because let's take the gaze part out of it entirely. 

I am hiding in the shadows in the back corner of the room. You are standing in the middle of the room. If you declare that you don't like those shadows, and look carefully at them, what happens? 

By the rules, you make a Spot check against my Hide check. If I win, I stay hidden. 

Even if I don't turn my eyes away - nothing in the rules indicates that obscuring my eyes is a requirement for hiding. Nothing in the rules indicates that if I don't do so, and you look in my direction, that there is any possibility you automatically see me without having to make a spot check. 

Now, you have made mention to your own personal experience with hiding, and said that the eyes are the most vulnerable part of remaining hidden. You could logically follow this, perhaps, with the idea that anyone trained in hide is automatically taking precautions to keep their eyes turned away when someone looks at them, and that if someone chooses actively to not do so, their hiding might be broken. 

I wouldn't be a fan of such a ruling, myself, since I think it could arbitrarily screw PCs - but if you felt such a ruling was appropriate, you could run it that way in your games. But it would certainly be a house rule - by the rules, Hiding doesn't have any requirement to cover or turn your eyes away, nor does it give any chance for someone to automatically see you without successfully making their Spot check. 

So in the end, both of the preferences you have are not unreasonable depending on the style of play you want - but both of them are very definitely houserules. And more than that, I don't think this is due to any flaw in the 3rd Edition rules - saying that gazing upon a creature's eyes renders you vulnerable to its gaze attack makes perfect sense to me, nor do I think it necessary to add more requirements and restrictions on how the rules for hiding work. 

I won't object to anyone who wants to run it differently. But I will continue to disagree with anyone who insists that those rulings are by the book, or that a DM who runs them differently is at fault or a "bad DM".


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 4, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> This isn't a house rule - its the set up of the encounter as determined by the DM. It's no different than numerous adventures where there is X chance that a particular creature is in a particular place. A house rule would be that for _all_ gaze attacks roll d% - 30 or less and your are possibly affected - roll a save.




You are absolutely correct, and my bad for how I phrased it. Randomly determining something on the spot or the set-up of the encounter is just a standard part of DMing. If it was a generalized rule ("At any given time, there is only a 30% chance for any creature to be looking in your direction in combat") it would be a genuine house rule. 

My bad, and thanks for calling me on that!


----------



## Baron Opal (Sep 4, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> All this talk about literary characters in general are interesting, because protagonists in general don't die in books, at least not until the very end climax.  If they do die before then, they're typically brought back to life.  Having a group go through dozens of characters falling like rats doesn't fit any literary tropes.



This does bring to mind George Martin's tale and Mazatlan's Book of the Fallen. However, I would certainly grant that there are relatively few "heroes" in those books.

Edit: Holy Cats! I didn't realize the length of this thread, or how out of date my reply was at the time.

Slowly backing away...


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 4, 2010)

As a player, I thoroughly enjoy the sense of danger that comes from the possibility of a " bug zapper" type of death that may happen from time to time.  After 44 pages of differing opinions we all like what we like in our games.  I happen to prefer the threat of an instant zap. It makes play seem more exciting to me in a way that SSSD just doesn't deliver for whatever reason. Since a picture is worth a thousand posts I would just hate to feel like this guy during a game:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLlUgilKqms]YouTube - Austin Powers 1- Stoooooooooooooooop![/ame]


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 5, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I won't object to anyone who wants to run it differently. But I will continue to disagree with anyone who insists that those rulings are by the book, or that a DM who runs them differently is at fault or a "bad DM".




Just to be clear, you are shifting the goalposts quite a bit.  

The original argument is:

1.  Sneaky PC looks into room which contains a bodak.
2.  DM tells player that PC must make a save vs. the bodak's gaze attack.
3.  I say that this is a case of bad DMing, as the DM failed to take the circumstances into account and arbitrarily chose the result most likely to screw the players.
4.  The counter-claim is that the DM should not be faulted for going by the book....implying or outright stating that the RAW claims that anyone who sees a bodak must save, based on the first bullet point under "Gaze Attacks" in the DMG (or SRD replicating that bullet point).
5.  This is shown to be an incomplete reading.
6.  A claim is made that any other reading is "house ruling", apparently even if consistent with the RAW.
7.  I then claim that, if determining whether or not the rogue meets the bodak's gaze is house ruling, so too is merely claiming that he does so arbitrarily.

Now, it may be true that "By the rules, if you can see a creature's eyes, you are vulnerable to its gaze attack"  if "vulnerable to its gaze attack" is taken to mean "are in a position where you might have to make a saving throw."

The specific context of the rule, though is looking "the thing in its eye" and catching "the thing's eye".  Neither of these mean "can see the thing's eye".  If you equate the two, that is a house rule.

Arguing about what it means to "meet a gaze" is, apparently, fruitless, if the standard English language usage is no to be applied.  Thankfully, it is a side point, and not the main argument doesn't rely upon it.



MrMyth said:


> You are absolutely correct, and my bad for how I phrased it. Randomly determining something on the spot or the set-up of the encounter is just a standard part of DMing. If it was a generalized rule ("At any given time, there is only a 30% chance for any creature to be looking in your direction in combat") it would be a genuine house rule.
> 
> My bad, and thanks for calling me on that!




Of course, glad to see that you moved back from this.



RC


----------



## Hussar (Sep 5, 2010)

Totally not getting re-involved here, but, stumbled over this image and thought it was appropriate:


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 5, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Just to be clear, you are shifting the goalposts quite a bit.
> 
> The original argument is:
> 
> ...




Interesting, but... not quite accurate. 

The claim was made that _because_ the rogue was hidden, the Bodak was thus unlikely to be looking in its direction. Some considered this to be a common sense situation where the rules should be overriden. You took it a step further, and said that by the very rules themselves, the DM was going against the rules in having the player make a save. 

To argue that point, you didn't make the argument that he made a bad and arbitrary call - you made the claim that his call was against the rules, and that going by RAW, the Bodak's face couldn't be visible from his viewpoint. You later revised this claim to instead be that he couldn't meet gazes with the Bodak while hidden, and that if he could, he would no longer be hidden. 

There's a couple claims in there I disagree with. 

One, that whether the Bodak's face is visible is in any way connected with him being hidden. It isn't. The DM could decide the Bodak's positioning based on any number of factors, or use random chance to determine it. In this case, he was informed by the adventure of its position and that its responsibility was to watch the entrance for intruders - elements that, given the window the rogue was looking from, resulted in its features being clearly visible to him. 

If you feel that was a bad and arbitrary ruling, fair enough. I simply find it strange, though, since after so many arguments in favor of a logically consistent setting, you would prefer a DM make a ruling solely on a metagame element and a desire to softball things for the player. 



Raven Crowking said:


> 5. This is shown to be an incomplete reading.
> 6. A claim is made that any other reading is "house ruling", apparently even if consistent with the RAW.




The rule say that "A gaze attack takes effect when opponents look at the creature's eyes." 

You, and others, have made the claim that the gaze attack only works if those involved actively meet each other's gaze. Some claiming that is the more mythic way for such an ability to work. Maybe, maybe not. Either way, though, it is not how the rules clearly state it works, which means your reading is absolutely a house rule. 



Raven Crowking said:


> 7. I then claim that, if determining whether or not the rogue meets the bodak's gaze is house ruling, so too is merely claiming that he does so arbitrarily.




Again, the original claim that I labelled a house rule was that because a rogue was hidden, this implied that the Bodak wasn't looking in his direction. This _is_ a house rule. Putting the issue of gaze attacks entirely aside, you can hide from creature's looking in your direction as long as you have cover or concealment. 

Every time I have raised this point, you've instead abruptly stopped responding to that portion of the argument, or called it an unrelated topic and tried to switch the focus of the discussion. 

You were the one who claimed that it was "a house rule, at best" that a rogue looking in the window would be subject to a Bodak's gaze. There was no connection to that statement and any claim on my behalf that whether the rogue meets the Bodak's gaze was a house rule. 

Note that by making that claim, you aren't just saying that it isn't likely for a creature to meet the Bodak's gaze - you are, again, saying that it is outright against the rules. That there is something in the rules such that it is not possible for a hidden character to meet a Bodak's gaze. 

Despite not having, at any point, put forward any evidence for this - and having been presented with several pieces of evidence that directly contradict such a position. 



Raven Crowking said:


> Now, it may be true that "By the rules, if you can see a creature's eyes, you are vulnerable to its gaze attack" if "vulnerable to its gaze attack" is taken to mean "are in a position where you might have to make a saving throw."
> 
> The specific context of the rule, though is looking "the thing in its eye" and catching "the thing's eye". Neither of these mean "can see the thing's eye". If you equate the two, that is a house rule.




Here is the actual rules quote, one more time: "A gaze attack takes effect when opponents look at the creature's eyes." 

It does not get clearer than that. You are trying to add additional restrictions to this by making the claim of context. The quotes you have provided? Are from a descriptive narrative giving examples of characters being affected by a creature's gaze attack. That flavor text helps show how the ability works, yes, but it does not override the actual rules themselves.

Here are what seem to have been the core arguments that have been made, and here are my barebones objections to them:

*Claim*: If you are hidden, it means the opponent is most likely looking in another objection. 

*Rebuttal*: No, since if this was true, you could automatically spot a hidden figure by declaring that you are looking at the shadows in which they are hiding - which is not the case. Instead, even if you look at their hiding spot, you make a Spot check opposed by their Hide check, and if you fail, you do not see them unless you in some fashion remove or negate their concealment or cover. 


*Claim:* A gaze attack requires actively meeting the gaze of the creature, not simply viewing its eyes. 

*Rebuttal: *No, a gaze attack simply requires viewing its eyes, based on the opening line of the gaze attack entry in the monster manual, "A gaze attack takes effect when opponents look at the creature's eyes."


----------



## Abraxas (Sep 5, 2010)

I just want to comment on a couple items in your post...



MrMyth said:


> Interesting, but... not quite accurate.
> 
> The claim was made that _because_ the rogue was hidden, the Bodak was thus unlikely to be looking in its direction. Some considered this to be a common sense situation where the rules should be overriden.



 Not quite true - the original description of what happened suggested that merely looking at the bodak forced the save. What was being objected too was the idea that merely seeing the creature = meeting its gaze. That is not true according to the rules regardless of what side of this discussion you are on.



MrMyth said:


> One, that whether the Bodak's face is visible is in any way connected with him being hidden. It isn't. The DM could decide the Bodak's positioning based on any number of factors, or use random chance to determine it. In this case, he was informed by the adventure of its position and that its responsibility was to watch the entrance for intruders - elements that, given the window the rogue was looking from, resulted in its features being clearly visible to him.



Perhaps I missed something but where was this additional information about the scenario posted?


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 5, 2010)

Can we hear about how people dealt with the SoD situation *in actual play* or should we continue to discuss abstract rules and theory?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 5, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Interesting, but... not quite accurate.





Indeed.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 5, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> Can we hear about how people dealt with the SoD situation *in actual play* or should we continue to discuss abstract rules and theory?




Sure. In our group we have had deaths, petrification, paralysis, and even characters turned into green slime. We dealt with it by shrugging it off, and either restoring the character or replacing him/her with another adventurer because we are playing a _game_ and sometimes bad things happen. The need to specifically deal with the problem as if it's more than that can come with treating the game as more than what it is.


----------



## RedShirtNo5.1 (Sep 5, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> Can we hear about how people dealt with the SoD situation *in actual play* or should we continue to discuss abstract rules and theory?




This is the internet.  What do you think?

Two examples come to mind.

G2, 3.0 conversion, 8th level PCs.  The PCs know that the rift has frost giants and their allies, although exact nature of allies is unknown.  Rouge turns invisible and moves ahead to scout.  He peers into a room with three yeti, fails one of the three saving throws, and is paralyzed.  I don't recall how the yeti found him - maybe they had scent in the conversion the DM was using - but the rogue is mostly eaten before the rest of the party can arrive.  The player shrugs it off, although there is general agreement that multiple creatures with gaze is probably a higher EL than would otherwise be indicated.

Expedition to Ruins of Castle Greyhawk, 3.5, 11th level PCs.  We learn from a rescued NPC that a 



Spoiler



half-dragon basilisk or dracolisk


 lairs in a cavern below.  We approach the cavern, several prepatory spells are cast, but the creature hears us and moves closer.  Initiative is rolled, and my scout is first.  I strongly consider having him not move into the cave, not because the PC would be afraid, but because I seem to have bad luck and "I have a bad feeling about this".  My PC moves in, averts eyes from the creature, and prompty fails the 50% and saving throw.  I'm miffed for a few minutes, not because of the encounter which I think is actually well designed, but because of the continuing "bad luck".


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 6, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> Not quite true - the original description of what happened suggested that merely looking at the bodak forced the save. What was being objected too was the idea that merely seeing the creature = meeting its gaze. That is not true according to the rules regardless of what side of this discussion you are on.




Well, no, but the response seemed to have been that there was _no _acceptable scenario in which the rogue could look into the room and meet the Bodak's gaze while hidden. And the claim was, specifically, that because the rogue was hidden, the Bodak was likely looking away from it. 

Some relevant quotes:


Raven Crowking said:


> "Successful sneaking means that the creature is not meeting your gaze" is not a very high bar for common sense. If a creature is meeting your gaze, it knows you are there. I can think of no counter example. If a creature doesn't know you are there, perforce, it is not meeting your gaze. Any other ruling, IMHO, is a bad ruling, _*regardless of the advice given in the rulebooks*_.





Raven Crowking said:


> The PC rogue sneaks up to the cabin and peers in the window. He does so successfully, which rather indicates that the inhabitant(s) are not looking at him.





Plane Sailing said:


> While it is conceivable that a rogue might be hidden and end up looking straight into the creatures eyes, occams razor suggests that if he has correctly hidden, then that is a particularly unlikely result.




My argument has been that it is entirely possible to have a scenario in which the hidden rogue can view the eyes of a Bodak, which is what the rules require for him to have to make a save against the Gaze attack. 

Could there be other scenarios in which the Bodak _is_ looking away? Absolutely. But that wasn't what people were saying. They were saying that my scenario - one in which a rogue could see the Bodak - was wrong. Was either bad DMing for ignoring common sense, or was outright incorrect by the rules. 

And those positions seemed to be based, primarily, on two seperate things: 
1) That creatures are automatically assumed to be looking away from anyone who is hiding; and
2) That you can safely look at the eyes of a Bodak without any ill effect as long as you aren't 'actively meeting its gaze'. 

Both of which, I feel, I have provided successful rebuttals to above. 



Abraxas said:


> Perhaps I missed something but where was this additional information about the scenario posted?




I think I mentioned it was set to guard the place relatively early on (when asked if it would be more reasonable for its gaze to be turned off.) I think I set forward all of those elements in more precise terms when we were discussing how a DM might decide where a creature could be in the room. 

I'm not sure how much it changes things, though. The message people seemed to be saying was that a DM was at fault for any scenario in which a hidden rogue could meet the Bodak's gaze, regardless of how appropriate it might be or not. If I misread that from some people, and was applying RC's viewpoints to other less extreme ones, then my apologies for doing so.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 6, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Indeed.




Fair enough. I've given my evidence and quotes from the rules that prove my point. If you're willing to let my rebuttals stand without any counter response, I'm willing to let this tangent (save or) die. 



LostSoul said:


> Can we hear about how people dealt with the SoD situation *in actual play* or should we continue to discuss abstract rules and theory?




Here is one that comes to mind for me. A few years back, my friends was running an adventure in Ptolus. We were nearing the end of it, and were launching an attack on some evil guy's lair. Coming in through a side entrance, we ran into a guardian golem made out of tombstones. It wasn't intended to be a major challenge of any sort. But it landed a hit on a friend's character, and we discovered it had a Save or Die effect. Again, it was low CR compared to us, the CR was a trivial DC 14. 

And my friend rolled a 1. 

Years later, we still laugh about it. (And, well, largely did so at the time as well, since friendly mockery is how that group operates). But at the time, it also felt pretty obnoxious - we couldn't go back to get him raised without the bad guy completing his evil ritual (or whatever he was up to). So we trekked on without him, which meant he got to sit there through the rest of the session planning out his next character (since, at level 16 or so, cranking out a new character isn't all that simple.) 

And the next week he came in with his new guy and we moved on, and all was well. But still. One ability, on a creature designed to be a speedbump, and one unlucky roll, meant he had to sit out the session.

Which sorta reinforces my main feelings about Save or Die - if they have to exist, they should at least be special. Something the epic villain or mythic creature, maybe. But random encounters across the board, dozens of spells of varying levels...? That's what I could do without.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 6, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Well, no, but the response seemed to have been that there was _no _acceptable scenario in which the rogue could look into the room and meet the Bodak's gaze while hidden. And the claim was, specifically, that because the rogue was hidden, the Bodak was likely looking away from it.




That, at least, is correct, or would be if you changed "the Bodak was likely looking away from it" to "the Bodak was ver, very likely not looking directly at it".



> The message people seemed to be saying was that a DM was at fault for any scenario in which a hidden rogue could meet the Bodak's gaze, regardless of how appropriate it might be or not.




No.

No one is arguing "regardless of how appropriate it might be or not".  The argument is that it is not appropriate in the example given.  This is, once again, your attempt to alter someone's argument to your benefit.

What is argued is that the DM is at fault if, given multiple possible interpretations, he chooses the interpretation that most screws the players.  The DM is even more at fault if the circumstances make that interpretation far less likely than the one chosen.  

If the DM does this occasionally, this is a weakness in his DMing (which happens, and is okay, but one should try to learn from one's failings). regularly, the DM is a poor DM.

Shipwrecks can happen.  Sometimes, shipwrecks are appropriate.  Arbitrarily making a shipwreck happen despite it being extremely unlikely is bad DMing.  Arbitrarily making a shipwreck happen despite it being extremely unlikely every time the PCs get on a ship is a likely indicator of a bad DM.  Unless one of the PCs is Groo, and Ruferto isn't with him.

The whole argument begs the question, though, why you think this _*isn't*_ bad DMing.....?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 6, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Fair enough. I've given my evidence and quotes from the rules that prove my point. If you're willing to let my rebuttals stand without any counter response, I'm willing to let this tangent (save or) die.





Sorry, but is this actually about twisting people's arguments until they get tired of clarifying, and then you declare yourself the winner?  Really?   

Okay.  You've slaughtered every straw man you've raised.  You win.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 6, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry, but is this actually about twisting people's arguments until they get tired of clarifying, and then you declare yourself the winner? Really?




Er... no? The main reason I continued this line was that you had declared certain things to be by the RAW, when they were not. I don't think this was about getting tired of clarifying - I had provided direct quotes from the rules that specifically contradicted the claims you were making. I took your response to mean that you were conceding that point. 

If that isn't the case... well, I'll lay out once more the main points of the argument if you want to respond to them: 

*Claim*: If you are hidden, it means the opponent is most likely looking in another direction. 

*Rebuttal*: No, since if this was true, you could automatically spot a hidden figure by declaring that you are looking at the shadows in which they are hiding - which is not the case. Instead, even if you look at their hiding spot, you make a Spot check opposed by their Hide check, and if you fail, you do not see them unless you in some fashion remove or negate their concealment or cover. 


*Claim:* A gaze attack requires actively meeting the gaze of the creature, not simply viewing its eyes. 

*Rebuttal: *No, a gaze attack simply requires viewing its eyes, based on the opening line of the gaze attack entry in the monster manual, "A gaze attack takes effect when opponents look at the creature's eyes."


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 6, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> What is argued is that the DM is at fault if, given multiple possible interpretations, he chooses the interpretation that most screws the players. The DM is even more at fault if the circumstances make that interpretation far less likely than the one chosen.




And this is the part where things are strange to me. Earlier you talk about wanting things to have logical consistency, and that a DM shouldn't be softballing SoD encounters. Now you seem to be saying the opposite - that a DM is at fault if he has a SoD monster and allows it to affect a PC. That when deciding how events happen, he should choose the scenario which is least harmful to the PCs, rather than basing it on what seems logical in the scenario itself. 

In this case, a PC looks into a room in which there is a Bodak, and one which it is likely will have its features visible to them. 

To confirm, do you feel the appropriate thing to do in this instance would be for the DM to decide that the Bodak happened to be looking away at that very moment, when there was no logical reason for it to do so? 



> The whole argument begs the question, though, why you think this _*isn't*_ bad DMing.....?




Because the only element that made this a bad situation was the SoD itself. A rogue sneaks up to a cabin and looks inside. A bodak is in the room, set there to guard the place. It was in a position where its features are visible to the rogue. The DM could arbitrarily decide it is looking away, but there is no reason for that to be the case. Thus, the rogue can see its features, and upon looking at its evil eyes, the rogue dies. 

Let's switch the Bodak with someone else, and run this scenario again. 

A rogue sneaks up to a cabin and looks inside. Jack the Fighter is in the room, set there to guard the place. He is in a position where his features are visible to the rogue. The DM could arbitrarily decide he is looking away, but there is no reason for that to be the case. Thus, the rogue can see his features, and identify who he is, and return with that information for his friends. 

The only part that is a problem is the rogue dying. Nothing else about either above scenario seems unreasonable. Saying that it is possible to spy upon someone from hiding, and see their features, seems likely in any number of circumstances. Declaring that the DM should have the Bodak looking away, not because it makes sense, but because doing otherwise is 'screwing the PCs' seems to be saying that the default is for a DM to use SoD monsters, but them softball them as much as possible.


----------

