just thought of another reason for Save or Die type effects and lethality.
to remind players that 'all bets are off' and even big damn heroes can die.
Think of Wash in Serenity. There was not dramatic fight, or loss of hit points or anything. But that harpoon to the chest told everyone that there might be no getting out of it.
and I'll point out that Alan Tudyek, despite loving Wash and the Serenity universe, joked about it. "Joss, why does my script stop at 228 and everyone else gets to 260?" That's the attitude I try to take.
As a guy who's had his 12th level dwarven barbarian/fighter fail a FORT save by rolling a "1" against a Disintegrate spell, I have to say that I wouldn't have it any other way.
Without the chance of snuffing it D&D doesn't feel like D&D to me.
Last time we played D&D, 4 out of 5 party members were turned to stone in 2 rounds by a basilisk because we rolled like crap on our saves. The only guy to survive blindfolded himself and stumbled away after the second round of combat (and then ran like a scared girl!).
None of us blamed the DM or the game system. We prepared poorly for the encounter and paid the price. That's part of what makes D&D great... resource management and preparedness are essential.
|
And something like that will never happen in crosswired's campaigns. Because PC deaths should never happen due to a particularly unlucky roll.
By the way, crosswired, are your PC's ever afraid of non-climactic battles?
You are right - I never need to find an excuse for randomness. I do not have to justify sloppy mechanics with convoluted plot points.
As for the second point - yes they do. I don't kill PCs frequently but they know that I will. They may not fear death too much since I prefer that they fear failure rather than the 1 they might roll on save or die randomness.
So when two dwarfs stepped up to block the cave mouth from which the fiendish behir was about to emerge and slaughter the party they knew the risk.
Critical bite, swallowed whole, crushed in the gizzard, reduced to -12 HP all on the AoO as one of the dwarfs approached. The next dwarf survived the bite and swallow, and his armor spikes got him out. Meanwhile the elf archer and the others had enough time to pummel it. One final swing from the ground as the living dwarf came flopping out of the opened belly ended the critters life.
One dead, one nearly dead, and a party with soiled armor.
As to fear of failure - I prefer that the real test of role playing is to see if the PCs can truly win the day and not simply the avoidance of PC death scenes. To me this is rarely through a test of arms or saves, but through their choices as they react to the story and not the combat encounter.
Back in 1e/2e, I never made use of the catoplebas. It had a save or die gaze attack if it looked at you (unless it actually met your gaze, in which case there was no save). I felt it was too lethal. Dying is not fun when you don't stand a chance. I also did not use a lot of level draining undead, for similar reasons.
That said, I did have the party attacked by multiple dragons in one encounter and face gauntlets of near lethal traps. The save or die effects and such were kept for the main villains of an adventure. Even today, I tend to do that. Of course I am a little more free with level draining under 3.5 and I tend not to invoke a XP loss for rasing the dead (I want the player back in the story).
I believe the danger of dying should be there. I have put them in many tough situations that have left the party battered and weak, and occassionally needing to raise a dead character or two.
For the record, my players prefer to roll their own saves. It makes it feel like they are in control. Save or die effects also work both ways. My players have won against tough odds when the wizard pulled of a good use of a save or die effect.
|
|
I like less-lethal D&D for the same reason I don't play Call of Cthulhu: I really can't see the point in spending any kind of time developing a character if the character I now know and love will be very thoroughly permanently dead within two sessions.
Ah but I LOVE Call of Cthulhu for just that reason. Call of Cthulhu is all about knowing the PCs will either die, go insane, or flee for their lives in the face of cosmic forces over which they can hold no sway.
Characters in Call of Cthulhu are not meant to be played for years on end. When I build a D&D character I plan on becoming a hero. I build character background, history, goal, and the like. D&D is about telling the long form story where the hero develops and walks his or her path.
Call of Cthulhu is about the bright flare of heroism as the PC goes splat on the windshield of the Great Old One's 18 wheeler.
Call of Cthulhu PCs are expected to die. D&D PCs are expected to claw their way to 20th level and beyond.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I like less-lethal D&D for the same reason I don't play Call of Cthulhu: I really can't see the point in spending any kind of time developing a character if the character I now know and love will be very thoroughly permanently dead within two sessions.
Hey, my character BROKE that rule of CoC! How many investigators do you know of have taken a hit from an evil bird-god of Sumeria or whatever and lived?
Granted, the slash to the chest had shocked him into unconciousness immediately, and they had a hell of a time explaining it to the hospital...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I was once very firmly entrenched in the "PCs don't die" camp, with the usual exceptions for pre-planned heroics, and the "terminal stupidity" rule.
Boy, was i wrong. The attitude no one wants to admit to, but is ever present in these games is "nothing can really happen". And this does not create more death-defying actions, but less. Players know that short of deliberate stupidity, they are home free, and thus tend to take the path of least resistance. If they keep banging their head at some halfway plausible, but not really well-thought-out plan, they'll eventually make it, since the GM does not have "grounds to execute", and probably does not wish to throw the campaign over this "minor point".
And in addition, there is the ever present knowledge that "its all safe". What good is heroically swinging through the room if you have the knowledge that nothing can happen? Its by its very definition no longer heroic. It cheapens the PCs actions to the point that its very hard to still motivate any kind of going beyond the basics.
So give me a decent body-count over cushioned games any day. Especially D&D with its trademark revolving doors of death has few excuses. Death still hurts (the level loss is nothing to scoff at, as is the spell cost), but when you gamble, and win, it means so much more.
A lack of lethality makes the gameplay meaningless, and reduced lethality makes the accomplishments less worthwhile. "Everyone is special, which is another way of saying no-one is." to quote The Incredibles.
Without delving too much into the definition of heroism, my personal preference is for sword-and-sorcery and campaigns with a high lethality. It's been my experience that players attach more importance to characters who survived highly lethal campaigns than ones who had a "walk in the park", and that players play better and more carefully in such campaigns. Knowing that the dangers are mitigated and that your min-maxed character can shrug off most challenges makes for lazy players who engage too much with the rules and too little with the game world, IME.
Heck, I've played in (and run) campaigns without any raise dead, resurrection or restoration at all. That means some days the whole party gets a visit from Mr. Pale Horse, but those moments can be very memorable as well. It's not how you live, but how you die.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
With respect to all, I think we've established that DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is versatile enough to accomodate different styles of play, more than one of which is enjoyable to its adherents.
To paraphrase the SCA folks, the problem with "The Way to Play" is the word "the".
I understand your point Chris, so no offence taken.
I just worry that, based on what we've seen, 4.0 is going to be a step away from being able to play a lethal game.
D&D PCs are expected to claw their way to 20th level and beyond.
They are now. Until 3E, the likelihood that most PCs, even after years of play -- and that's assuming people even played the same character for years on end, which they often did not -- would see 15th level, let alone 20th was small. Indeed, back in the "good ol' days," encountering someone who claimed to have a 20th level character was a sure sign you'd encountered either a liar or a player with a Monty Haul DM.
D&D PCs are expected to claw their way to 20th level and beyond.They are now. Until 3E, the likelihood that most PCs, even after years of play -- and that's assuming people even played the same character for years on end, which they often did not -- would see 15th level, let alone 20th was small. Indeed, back in the "good ol' days," encountering someone who claimed to have a 20th level character was a sure sign you'd encountered either a liar or a player with a Monty Haul DM.
Hahaha. I remember when we considered a game of 10th level PCs a high level campaign.
Hahaha. I remember when we considered a game of 10th level PCs a high level campaign.
Once upon a time, everyone did -- even TSR. I recall, for example, that the conclusion to the old Dragonlance series was touted as a "high-level adventure" and was recommended for character levels 10-12.
|
|
D&D PCs are expected to claw their way to 20th level and beyond.They are now. Until 3E, the likelihood that most PCs, even after years of play -- and that's assuming people even played the same character for years on end, which they often did not -- would see 15th level, let alone 20th was small. Indeed, back in the "good ol' days," encountering someone who claimed to have a 20th level character was a sure sign you'd encountered either a liar or a player with a Monty Haul DM.
Never said they would get there but that is the goal.
I think Crosswired, Mortika, and Matthew (and others) have brought up a good point. Some players like save or die effects in their games and some do not. As it currently stands, DMs are free to choose whether to design and include save or die options. This may mean a short conversation explaining that a few spells and magic items are unavailable, but is really no different from other small house rules.
However, it seems as if 4e is limiting the options by removing save or die effects altogether. Why force people to remove an element of their game? What does that add? Surely those of you who run games without "random" lethality can see that changing the game to make it more to your particular preferences, reduces the enjoyment of others. Allowing it to have both (Big Tent, anyone?) should make it appeal to a wider audience.
Again, it isn't the death itself that gives this story meaning. It is that the character stayed alive long enough to evangelize, build a mausoleum, and create a following, and then when he died (whether in a long battle or with one unlucky roll -- it doesn't matter), what he achieved in life lived on and grew.One more story about dying being more heroic than surviving...
To get to the death part, we encountered a hag that inflicted a Cloudkill spell, and the poor rogue/cleric failed his save. In the meantime, he had converted a dwarven PC to worship of Aether, and he built a magnificnet mausoleum, complete with everburning flames. Additionally, several NPCs had been converted. The site would eventually become a pilgrimage destination.
I can almost agree with you here. I firmly believe dying well is as important as living well, and making an impact is "good" as is having some sort of lasting influence.
But then we get to the point of what happens if a charcter dies at first level? No save or die, no bad choices, he just gets involved in a fight with a few kobolds and bites it. The PC has had almost no time to build a personality, much less make a lasting contribution to his world. Should DMs put a moratorium on death until third level, or fourth, or tenth?
It seems if you say no-one will die until such-and-such a level, one might as well start out at that level, since nothing means much until one faces death as a penalty. But doing that gives no time to build a lasting impression (barring a backstory from the player, but then that is an exercise in fiction). And then we are left with the original problem.
One could also add that a moratorium on death gives te players time to become attached, making the death that much more traumatic for the player.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
But then we get to the point of what happens if a charcter dies at first level? No save or die, no bad choices, he just gets involved in a fight with a few kobolds and bites it. The PC has had almost no time to build a personality, much less make a lasting contribution to his world. Should DMs put a moratorium on death until third level, or fourth, or tenth?
It seems if you say no-one will die until such-and-such a level, one might as well start out at that level, since nothing means much until one faces death as a penalty. But doing that gives no time to build a lasting impression (barring a backstory from the player, but then that is an exercise in fiction). And then we are left with the original problem.
One could also add that a moratorium on death gives te players time to become attached, making the death that much more traumatic for the player.
My point is slightly different. Even if, from a purely storytelling perspective, killing off a character with lots of "unfinished business" is not quite satisfying, the chance must be there - otherwise, as you said, what you do in "life" has no meaning.
By saying "you can't die unless you screw up badly", you in effect make sure your players know exactly where the bar is, and that its easy to get across. Does not make for the most satisfying gaming experience.
With respect to all, I think we've established that DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is versatile enough to accomodate different styles of play, more than one of which is enjoyable to its adherents.
To paraphrase the SCA folks, the problem with "The Way to Play" is the word "the".
Agreed.
Highly lethal games are not for everyone. When I run a D&D game, I tend to run a heroic game. I stress roleplaying and hit the players with encounters that often seem tough from the damage they take, while insuring the group has the resource to face the final boss for a major battle. The lethality is there...or at least appear to be.
Now, I know a GM that ran a gritty game that was very lethal and cost the PCs dearly. Sometimes they could not win the day. The deck was stack against them. What kept the players going were the victories they did get. They were personal victories that drove them forward. The guy that ran that game is only one I know that could pull that story off. The players still talk about it.
|
|
Allowing it to have both (Big Tent, anyone?) should make it appeal to a wider audience.
That assumes that the GM is building a world of his own and not running pre-written mods. Then your choice could be even more limited.
It also assumes you play with a small group of friends when that is not always the case.
That assumes that the GM is building a world of his own and not running pre-written mods. Then your choice could be even more limited.
It also assumes you play with a small group of friends when that is not always the case.
I'm not sure from where you are deriving your assumptions here. If I read you correctly, then in the first case, you are suggesting running a pre-written module prohibits the GM from reducing lethality. I fail to see the direct connection; as these boards have shown, it seems a lot of changes are made to every pregenerated module; personally, I try to change very little in the encounters, only the fluff. Sometimes I do not want an encounter to be lethal, and I will either remove a spell selection or change how a monster uses a power. The only things hard to change are instant deah traps, which are typically only found in modules clearly designed for lethal campaigns (like the Mud Sorcerer's Tomb). If a DM does not want that level of lethality, he does not have to use it.
As to your second assumption, I am lost. I have played in three campaigns simultaneously all with variant house-rules and widely diverging DM styles and themes. In some, we could not die if we tried. In some, we struggled to live. Occasionally, the game-switching would result in minor confusion over a particular house-rule, but a quick reminder set us back on track. I actually liked it, as the three people who DMed woudl actually sit around and talk about their styles, and try new things in their own games. I simply do not see how playing with a large variety of people limits one choices; if anything, it seems it gives one greater freedom to choose what style of game one wants to play.
Conceivably, I could see your point for things like conventions and one-offs, where one generally needs to abide by the RAW, but in such short "campaigns", I don 't think one has the same attachment to a character. Please elucidate your assumptions if I am misinterpreting.
Now, I know a GM that ran a gritty game that was very lethal and cost the PCs dearly. Sometimes they could not win the day. The deck was stack against them. What kept the players going were the victories they did get. They were personal victories that drove them forward. The guy that ran that game is only one I know that could pull that story off. The players still talk about it.
Interesting - that was how most of the people I gamed with ran the original AD&D (I was the "storyteller," or "wuss DM" back then)...
Each of the regular GMs among my extended gaming group have different styles. While mine tends toward more heroic and less gritty, I do have a reputation for really messing with mind of my players. I go to great lengths put them in situations where they have to do things they claimed their characters would never do.
Lethality does not always have to be obvious, but the players should feel the threat is there.