I definitely agree that this is an old-school style of play that you're looking for. The current generation of gamers, especially new ones, are transitioning to tabletop gaming from other media that gives the idea of the epic story a level of familiarity. Serial dramas, for instance, have really taken off in popularity over the last decade, as have tightly woven stories in video games. To them, games that place a heavy emphasis on simulation, "Gygaxian naturalism", unguided exploration, and a low level of personal attachment to any given player character, may feel dry, purposeless or intimidating.
Neither style is wrong, in any sense, or better than the other. They are just appreciated more by different groups of people. I think, however, that the number of gamers who appreciate the more modern style are on the rise.
I too come from the so called old schooled of gaming, although I have had a smooth transaction through the different play-styles since I have been adapting to each new edition since the 0D&D days. My players are a mixed bunch, some of them come from the old school, while most have only been playing since the 3.0 days.
I have noticed a change in expectancies in my games. In the old days character death was excepted and happened quite often. Not every encounter was tailored to the power levels of the characters and magical items were rare and valuable. Nowadays my players seems to want to overpower most encounters with ease. Magical items has become just another tool for the players to customize their characters with and character death is at most an inconvenience to be gotten rid off at the nearest temple.
I've had trouble with clashes in style in the past, monty haul vs low magic, no background/motivation vs detailed character tie in to the plots etc.
The best thing you can do is advise them at the start of the campaign, and ease them into it.
Tell them 1-the fantasy world is home to all sorts of creatures, some encounters will be equal, less and more powerful than they are. Sometimes they will have to run away or hide. Remember the five senses though, so they may hear or see the giant dragon long before it is in striking distance.
Tell them there is a plot or plots, but they can deviate from this if there characters background, personality and motivation guides them to do so. Your role is to balance an entertaining game which can mean scraping or altering a plot to make it fun for all.
Tell them part of running the world is cause and effect. If you help merchants from bandits word will spread and your reputation will increase. But the evil cult trying to take over the kingdom may see you as a rising threat. Characters do not live in a vaccuum.
Lastly tell them that they may die, but there will be ways in game to get resurrected or reincarnated. However it will not be easy so be cautious. Your character cares about their own life after all.
|
I lean more towards that style of play too. In the past my group at times has had trouble finding replacement players and other times we had more interested than we could fit in the game. All i can suggest is keep looking and or maybe start up a game yourself and try and find players. Some may have never even tried that style before and if you introduce it to them, some might like it.
You could also compromise a little bit...I mean multiple play styles can get along fine as long as no one is being a problem player.
But I have a question...are you running these games or playing in them?
I am sort of in the same situation. Group fell apart recently, trying to get them back together. Younger players tend to want to win too much for my taste. I wonder if things will continue this way, and if in 30 years, the players just getting into the game will sneer at how easy the youth of that day and age want everything to be.
I am sort of in the same situation. Group fell apart recently, trying to get them back together. Younger players tend to want to win too much for my taste. I wonder if things will continue this way, and if in 30 years, the players just getting into the game will sneer at how easy the youth of that day and age want everything to be.
The issue is that you perceive this as younger players "needing to win" or "needing things to be easy". While that may all too often be the solution offered to those younger players, the issues that they have with old school gaming are not "I can't win," or "Things are too hard."
|
This is not a problem of the rules, this is a problem of playstyles.
The Alexandrian has a good article on the subject.
Basically, explain the style you want to your players. If they go for it, great! If not, accept it and either play their style, or find players that will go with yours.
I sometimes am guilty of calling the crawl-and-die style "old school" or "old fashioned," as I also am a player of more than 30 years. But I think a more accurate description of that style is "Gygaxian." As in, Good Ole' King Gary loved a nice old meat grinder, PC killfest with lots of crawling and a lot of free will and input from the players.
The reason I clarify this, is that I have been playing the other style, story-driven, as the OP described, for the same 31-year period. It really just depended on which group I was playing with. I will admit, though, that it seems a lot easier now to find the story style than to find people willing to go through the meat grinder with you.
Anyway, there have always been both styles. I think it's for nostalgic reasons that we associate that Gygaxian style with "old school," when it really is just... well, Gygaxian. Again, I too, am guilty of this. Who of us who played back then will ever really get over Gary? It was a lot of fun, to be sure.
However, the "low level of personal attachment" thing has not been the case. The opposite actually !
It was indeed true for new created characters, but those surviving will eventually become epic heroes too, involved with politics or kingdoms and so on. But then, it feels "real", not "narrated", when you play that guy from the very first (or even zero) level on - with the actual risks of losing everything that are very present.
We're talking about two very different things here. When I talk about attachment to the character, I mean personal investment. Players, for instance, will tend to furnish a more colorful history and develop interactions with NPCs and other PCs if they are better assured of their character's longevity.
This goes hand in hand with the misconception that "winning" is more important to modern gamers than old school ones. Participating in the unfolding story is important. That is winning, to many of these modern players.
Certainly, old school players will feel very attached to a character that has survived 20 levels, because that is a really difficult thing to pull off in a meat-grinding old school style game. Modern generation gamers don't see that same level 20 as an incredible achievement, however. Which brings us to an interesting observation on the modern gamer:
Levels are not a celebration of skill or a measure of personal achievement. Rather, for the modern gamer, levels are a way of tracking steady progress, both in terms of the strength of their character and in terms of the story's development.
Agree/disagree?
I like the 'tough love' style also, and am happy that both the campaigns I am involved with do get nasty - both have had fatalities.
That said, its not designed to be killer - its just that sometimes its how things work out.
I tend to kill PCs here in Houston; at least one of the players stated point-blank that he'd quit if I pulled any punches, which is not a problem for me anyway. In fact, during one of the last few adventures, the party stepped back and promised the villains not to interfere, rather than get themselves killed -- one whole village was the casualty that time, instead of any of the PCs. Smart players, fun times!
I sometimes am guilty of calling the crawl-and-die style "old school" or "old fashioned," as I also am a player of more than 30 years. But I think a more accurate description of that style is "Gygaxian." As in, Good Ole' King Gary loved a nice old meat grinder, PC killfest with lots of crawling and a lot of free will and input from the players.
The reason I clarify this, is that I have been playing the other style, story-driven, as the OP described, for the same 31-year period. It really just depended on which group I was playing with. I will admit, though, that it seems a lot easier now to find the story style than to find people willing to go through the meat grinder with you.
Anyway, there have always been both styles. I think it's for nostalgic reasons that we associate that Gygaxian style with "old school," when it really is just... well, Gygaxian. Again, I too, am guilty of this. Who of us who played back then will ever really get over Gary? It was a lot of fun, to be sure.
I was going to post something, but Bruunwald said everything I wanted to say -- I've played D&D for 30 years, and I've always liked the idea of story-based games (like the G-D-W sequence) better than "solve the puzzle dungeon with the least # of deaths" games (like Tomb of Horrors).
I also view the "Gygaxian" way as kind of "story-based". But the big difference here is: While in the modern games, the story seems to be already pre-planned...on the other hand, in the old-school ones, the story it is actually the RESULT of the characters (inter)actions with the game world. The world itself will however also work without the actions of the player characters in a perfect way.
What's your opinion on the Giants/Drow/Queen of the Demonweb Pits series?
I am a shameless Gygaxian.
The King is dead, long live the King.
I also view the "Gygaxian" way as kind of "story-based". But the big difference here is: While in the modern games, the story seems to be already pre-planned...on the other hand, in the old-school ones, the story it is actually the RESULT of the characters (inter)actions with the game world. The world itself will however also work without the actions of the player characters in a perfect way.
Right. The style of gaming I'm highlighting functions on the idea of naturalism - the game world exists independently of the players (it is less a game and more a simulation that the PCs merely participate in). The is a sharp contrast with traditional high-fantasy tales like The Lord of the Rings, where the main characters are swept into the adventure because of driving events that only they can stop. The world might exist without them, but the epic accomplishments or battles of their time would not take place but for their efforts. Put another way, in the old school gaming being described here, the epic story is internal to the character; the plot line of the story is determined by the course of the character's life and accomplishments. In a modern-style game, the epic story is external to the character; they participate in the story and may even be critical to its outcome, but the story is founded in the events of the setting; while the PCs can impact the story, the story itself provides the framework of the game's progression.
I am a shameless Gygaxian.
The King is dead, long live the King.
I, by and large, can't stand Gygaxian naturalism.
There's no accounting for taste. ;p
I think the players can and should be able to impact the story and the world around them, what I am well over is 'the fate of the world on their shoulders'. I'm not a fan of 'players as the centre of the universe'.
There will still be epic things taking place with or without their involvement, but certainly there might be new epic things happening if they start them, and indeed some things may also play out differently if they dont.
They can be huge, they can be epic, but they aren't the only game in town.
I am a shameless Gygaxian.
The King is dead, long live the King.
I, by and large, can't stand Gygaxian naturalism.
There's no accounting for taste. ;p
I agree, but there is a middle ground where players are held highly responsible for their actions without being put into auto-fail situations or you dieing without knowing why.
I agree, but there is a middle ground where players are held highly responsible for their actions without being put into auto-fail situations or you dieing without knowing why.
Just rocking up and saying 'you are dead' for no reason is kinda lame, and although I am not a fan of putting people in auto-fail situations, there are players that specialise in it :p
Blame LotR and fantasy tropes. You are the ONLY ones who can save X from Y. Imagine LotR if Aragorn and Frodo died, was replaced with someone almost completely unrelated; would you have the same epic?
I invest a lot of time into my characters, because I am intending to run them through a whole campaign, with goals, personal investment and so forth. Sure, I could play in a "you are a grain of sand in a desert" approach, but then I need to be informed. If my 10+ hours of work go down a drain because the GM thinks character death should be commonplace, he is losing a player. I can deal with losing one character, maybe two, but after that, I am coming out swinging my power-game hammer like a berserker, because if you are not going to respect my effort as a player, I am not respecting your effort as a GM.
I am a shameless Gygaxian.
The King is dead, long live the King.
I, by and large, can't stand Gygaxian naturalism.
There's no accounting for taste. ;p
As I said, over the years I played both. That said, the vast majority of the games I've been in (and certainly most of the games I've GMed) have been story-driven. I'm a world-builder, for sure. We've spent whole sessions figuring out a mystery with hardly a combat.
But I can't lie: sometimes I get out my magical, map-building die, warn everyone to get out the character(s) they don't care as much about, and start winging it with wild abandon.
I invest a lot of time into my characters, because I am intending to run them through a whole campaign, with goals, personal investment and so forth. Sure, I could play in a "you are a grain of sand in a desert" approach, but then I need to be informed.
Well I let the players make some decision, and thus the campaign has to be kicked off with the notion they dont exist. They start out as bit players in nothing, the local bar owner could kick sand in their faces if they are level 1. At L1 they have been nowhere and done nothing, and are pretty much a non-story. As they rise to power I let THEM work out how they want to interact with the space (or not) and the world plays out as it was designed. I leave it to the players to decide whether to start making waves (and on what magnitude) because sometimes they dont want to get involved as long as there is a steady stream of babes and booze - the Kingdom can go to hell in a handbasket, yet some players want to do all whacky stuff.
So I design the game as if they dont exist, with people that have their own motives, and then go from there.
If my 10+ hours of work go down a drain because the GM thinks character death should be commonplace, he is losing a player. I can deal with losing one character, maybe two, but after that, I am coming out swinging my power-game hammer like a berserker, because if you are not going to respect my effort as a player, I am not respecting your effort as a GM.
Similarly I put in time and effort into campaign design, and some of that design has sharp edges. What the players need to know is that if they make poor decisions those edges will cut - and sometimes its best to run away to fight another day. You could spend a hundred huors, a thousand even, but if you make poor decisions you will die, but whos fault was that?
For this reason I tend not to start at 1st level, because the characters are too fragile and succeptible to dying off one or two unfortuitous rolls.
By 2nd-3rd they become more robust and can wear a bit of bad luck without kicking up daisies. I want them to feel a bit special, not like they are made of glass :)
Shifty: Pretty much how I like to run things as well.
And I agree on the notion that if you do stupid things, you might die. I am talking about the deaths that you have absolutely no control over. "Rocks fall and you die" stuff. Like being murdered before you even get to act because the GM set up some utterly unreasonable ambush, metagamed something fierce ("Everyone ignore the heavily armored and high-HP people trying to kill us so we can kill one PC!!"), or "lol, you did not go on the railroad, so now I need to punish you" deaths. (Note that I do make a distinction between "Do what I say because you are only pawns in MY story"-rails, and "You stood my ground when the demiplane of Lord Badnasty was crumbling, and the escape portal was wavering on closing, and everyone was screaming 'RUN, YOU RETARD!'"-rails)
(Note that I do make a distinction between "Do what I say because you are only pawns in MY story"-rails, and "You stood my ground when the demiplane of Lord Badnasty was crumbling, and the escape portal was wavering on closing, and everyone was screaming 'RUN, YOU RETARD!'"-rails)
yesh, yesh you do. and for the record, i still think it was a good act to try to help that very realistic illusion of a dominated hero to escape from a lifetime of servitude to a monster. not the smartest act, but a good one.
I am talking about the deaths that you have absolutely no control over. "Rocks fall and you die" stuff."-rails)
OK that stuff is Cheeseburger and I agree I have no time for it.
At that point I pull out my DMG and start running a new campaign because whatever GM/DM just did that is having a 'moment' :p
The issue is that you perceive this as younger players "needing to win" or "needing things to be easy". While that may all too often be the solution offered to those younger players, the issues that they have with old school gaming are not "I can't win," or "Things are too hard."
The complaints I hear most often leveled at old-school gaming are:
1. Combat is too "swingy".
2a. Death is too common at low levels...
2b. ...And therefore, younger players tend to not want to "make an investment" in their character.
If you have to adjust to increase character survival to get younger players to make an investment, you are making it easier.
And yes, sometimes, rocks do fall, and you die.
I definitely agree that this is an old-school style of play that you're looking for. The current generation of gamers, especially new ones, are transitioning to tabletop gaming from other media that gives the idea of the epic story a level of familiarity. Serial dramas, for instance, have really taken off in popularity over the last decade, as have tightly woven stories in video games. To them, games that place a heavy emphasis on simulation, "Gygaxian naturalism", unguided exploration, and a low level of personal attachment to any given player character, may feel dry, purposeless or intimidating.
Neither style is wrong, in any sense, or better than the other. They are just appreciated more by different groups of people. I think, however, that the number of gamers who appreciate the more modern style are on the rise.
I believe Scott sums up much of what I would add to this. I think you're looking for a dangerous "sand box" (as it is sometimes called). You don't want a definitive story arc that you must adhere to, rather you want a complete world that allows you to explore and interact in whatever way you choose. Two keys there being: dangerous (read: you might die at any time if you run into something you aren't equipped to handle) and open to exploration (read: your GM knows everything about the entire world and is equipped to take you anywhere you want to go within it). The problem with dangerous sandboxes is that, as Scott points out, many players of RPGs, not even just those transitioning in (I can remember some very story arc driven PCs from my younger days) are looking for that storyline, and their place in it. They want the epic hero-ness to define them, rather than letting the world and their interactions to it define them as they go.
Scott also points out, and I agree totally, neither way is wrong. You must decide for yourself is it worth playing in groups that you are starting to feel a bit of ennui in? Or would you be better served pouring your resources and time into finding like-minded gamers, and a world-built (meaning the GM has an entire world already built in their head and has it's minutia at his disposal) GM?
For some this is like asking how many licks does it take to get to the tootsie-rollTM center of a tootsie-popTM.
The complaints I hear most often leveled at old-school gaming are:
1. Combat is too "swingy".
2a. Death is too common at low levels...
2b. ...And therefore, younger players tend to not want to "make an investment" in their character.If you have to adjust to increase character survival to get younger players to make an investment, you are making it easier.
I agree with these points, but as I noted, though making the game easier is often the solution DMs choose to address these problems with, the players aren't trying to coerce the DM into making the game easier. They just want a game where they aren't going to have to start over from scratch due to poor luck on their part, because having to start over from scratch destroys the character's investment in the story and seriously damages the player's. They want a challenging game like anyone else, but 9 times out of 10 it's better to represent the players' collective failure through story effects rather than forcing a player to switch to a new character.
They just want a game where they aren't going to have to start over from scratch due to poor luck on their part, because having to start over from scratch destroys the character's investment in the story and seriously damages the player's.
But it shouldn't. Going through a couple of characters during a campaign should not lessen your personal investment in the campaign. Poor luck can be a killer. That's simply a part of the gameplay that people like myself enjoy - otherwise, we'd houserule away save or die effects.
Now, I know that gaming, in general, is moving away from concepts that I tend to prefer. I just had almost this exact same conversaation not a week ago. I want games to be harder. Tabletop, video game, etc. - all of it. For video games, the difficulty of Ninja Gaiden, Demon's Souls, and pretty much anything from the coin-op era ought to be standard for the "easy" settings, IMO.
But it shouldn't. Going through a couple of characters during a campaign should not lessen your personal investment in the campaign.
If a player's investment to the campaign is at all tied to their character's involvement in the campaign, then removing that character from the campaign (via death or otherwise) necessarily lessens that player's involvement.
Poor luck can be a killer.
In real life.
In game design, however, inflicting significant setbacks on a player due to bad luck is frowned upon.
That's simply a part of the gameplay that people like myself enjoy - otherwise, we'd houserule away save or die effects.
Save-or-die effects didn't have a lot of fans to begin with. Every major player in the industry is moving away from them, Pathfinder included. This is a good thing.
Now, I know that gaming, in general, is moving away from concepts that I tend to prefer. I just had almost this exact same conversaation not a week ago. I want games to be harder. Tabletop, video game, etc. - all of it. For video games, the difficulty of Ninja Gaiden, Demon's Souls, and pretty much anything from the coin-op era ought to be standard for the "easy" settings, IMO.
Ahh, but here's the question: do you want games to provide harder settings so that people like you can feel challenged (i.e., keep difficulty levels the same as they are now, but add additional "Super Hard" and "Extra Super Hard" modes on top), or do you want games to provide harder settings so that everyone has to be better in order to fully enjoy the game (i.e., bump the "Easy" setting up to the level of difficulty seen in games like Ninja Gaiden)?
If it's the former, that's fine; you care about having a challenging game experience for yourself. If it's the latter, you should seriously examine why you want to make a change to the game that doesn't affect you personally and doesn't really accomplish anything beyond making it more difficult for people to enjoy the game.
The other point is, it is FAR easier to run a campaign around the players, than possess the requisite skill and vision to create a full living breathing world for them to run around in. So hence to open the game up to the wider audience the easier path needs to be taken.
I think, I will just try the other way round: I will start my own game with modern (3rd Edition / Pathfinder) ruleset, and state how it will be like (style-wise) and see if I can find players for that.
Maybe I will add stuff like training costs to level up, or XP per gp of acquired treasure (however, I fear the XP progression is already pretty fast, even on the "Slow" table)
Be careful with this. Training costs to level is something that I've rarely heard players request. Unless you feel like making PCs pay for leveling is going to substantially increase your ability to enjoy the game, I'd definitely talk to your players before putting that particular house rule into action.
Now what im looking for, is PF/3rd Edition compatible material for:
- good random tables for encounters, sites, cities and more (like those already in the Pathfinder rulebook)
- hex-maps such as these in "Wilderlands"-Products from Judges Guild (if anyone remembers those..), they can also be generic
- mass-combat rulesI like Golarion quite a lot so far (from a players perspective), so maybe that will serve as the game world.
If you haven't already done so, check out Paizo's Kingmaker adventure path. It's designed to be sandbox-style, and includes hex-map exploration and some mass combat rules IIRC.
And it's set in Golarion, so that part is taken care of for you.
Save-or-die effects didn't have a lot of fans to begin with. Every major player in the industry is moving away from them, Pathfinder included. This is a good thing.
In your opinion.
If a player's investment to the campaign is at all tied to their character's involvement in the campaign, then removing that character from the campaign (via death or otherwise) necessarily lessens that player's involvement.
Involvement does not equal investment. You should still be just as interested and excited abou the campaign, whether you die a thousand times or not at all.
If it's the former, that's fine; you care about having a challenging game experience for yourself. If it's the latter, you should seriously examine why you want to make a change to the game that doesn't affect you personally and doesn't...
Save-or-die effects didn't have a lot of fans to begin with. Every major player in the industry is moving away from them, Pathfinder included. This is a good thing.
Irony, thy name is difficulty arguments.
Yes, I want the whole of gaming to move towards more difficult territory. I want all of society to stop being so wussified.
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/blogs/birds-nest/_It_s_Part_of_the_Wussifica tion_of_America__Philadelphia-112524384.html
In your opinion.
Yes. In my opinion. Shall I prepend all of my qualitative and value statements with that, in order to make things clearer for you?
Involvement does not equal investment. You should still be just as interested and excited abou the campaign, whether you die a thousand times or not at all.
Oh, should you?
Irony, thy name is difficulty arguments.
Ooooh, way to cut out the second part of my first statement! You know, the one that read "...and doesn't really accomplish anything beyond making it more difficult for people to enjoy the game."
Yes, I want the whole of gaming to move towards more difficult territory. I want all of society to stop being so wussified.
And your master plan starts with...forcing gamers to be better in order to complete the game they bought?
Brilliant.
My argument is that a huge number of people hate save or die effects and think they harm the game. Thus, save or die effects being removed is a good thing, as it negatively impacts many play experiences. My argument is also that making games harder just to make them harder makes it more difficult for people to enjoy the game. If you want a harder game, you can add harder difficulties without impacting the ability of those who prefer an easier game.
What I'm taking away from all of this is that you want to make completing video games some kind of elite club where only the very skilled get to fully enjoy the game they purchased. That's pretty clear elitism. Rather than being inclusive, and accommodating both easy and challenging playstyles, you want to be exclusive.
I mean, is that not what you're saying? In an effort to "dewussify" America, you want to make gaming into a "You must be at least this awesome to fully enjoy," club?
Because, frankly, that's kind of disgusting.
A couple of things....
1) This is really not a old school vs new school issue...as I have seen both types just about equaly represented though out my gaming history. While Gygax was definitly a influence at first I think people rapidly moved away from him...
2) I don't get how player can feel more involved in heavily story driven games? I create a character I usualy write a 1 or 2 page backgrounds...which maybe a DM might read the first paragraph and use just that ignoring the rest. It has gotten to the point where I just don't write a background for such games as it really does not matter. Also all story driven I have played the characters were completely irrelvelant to the story. Not saying I can not have fun in such a game...though mostly it comes inspite of the story. And I don't think it is wrong...I just don't get it.
Personaly I like game where the players interact with the world...grow in power...explore....have to sometimes run from things...etc. I like starting at the start of my characters career and if they die...well I have a thousand other ideas....and it not like you can't recycle concepts( well it is easier if you have three different groups you play with like me). Sure I don't like Gygaxian level of leathality...but if there is no risk... it is not fun.
Lastly I don't think the majority of gamers go one way or the either...I think the majority probably, like most things, lie in between.
My argument is that a huge number of people hate save or die effects and think they harm the game. Thus, save or die effects being removed is a good thing, as it negatively impacts many play experiences. My argument is also that making games harder just to make them harder makes it more difficult for people to enjoy the game. If you want a harder game, you can add harder difficulties without impacting the ability of those who prefer an easier game.
Actualy it is your opinion that 'a huge number of people hate save or die and think they harm the game.' As I have never seen a huge amount of people ever say so(I don't consider what the twenty people on a message board and about ten people in real as a huge majority...). I personaly think save or die effects have their place in the game...I have seen them abused by GMs in the past...but so can anything really.
And well to turn you last sentence around....if you want the game to be easier you can remove save or die effects. Personbaly I think the best games are the one who put it out at a median diffitculty.
And what is this large move you see in the industry away from leathality? WotC 4th ed? Is the only one I can think of...and Pathfinder reduced them...but did not get rid of them. Actualy the added more with the APG. So really only 4th ed D&D...which in my opinion is catering exclusively to one style of players...and I speculate their sales are hurting because of it.
|
|
Because, frankly, that's kind of disgusting.
What I find disgusting is a society that needs to be told "Caution, Contents may be hot" on a HOT cup of coffee, or "Caution, Metal Slide my be hot" because it's been sitting in the HOT sun all day. Or even better, do not use your hair dryer in the bathtub...
But that (and this) is a topic for another thread...
Because, frankly, that's kind of disgusting.What I find disgusting is a society that needs to be told "Caution, Contents may be hot" on a HOT cup of coffee, or "Caution, Metal Slide my be hot" because it's been sitting in the HOT sun all day. Or even better, do not use your hair dryer in the bathtub...
But that (and this) is a topic for another thread...
There's a difference between litigiousness and wanting a casual gaming experience.
|
Personaly I like game where the players interact with the world...grow in power...explore....have to sometimes run from things...etc. I like starting at the start of my characters career and if they die...well I have a thousand other ideas....and it not like you can't recycle concepts( well it is easier if you have three different groups you play with like me). Sure I don't like Gygaxian level of leathality...but if there is no risk... it is not fun.
That I can wholeheartedly agree with.
As far as story-driven games go: it is quite easy to feel involved in such a game as long as the story is (at least partially) about the characters. When I'm the GM, I work with the background of the player characters even if I run them through something like the Pathfinder APs. Most often that means that I start with the premise of a campaign and let it develop according to what I get from the players. Sometimes it's easy as when the PCs are inhabitants of Sandpoint and therefore have quite the motivation to fight for their town. Other times we deviate at some point from the APs premise and follow ideas which developed from the PCs background. So the story isn't necessarily what's prewritten in some product (or the GM's imagination) but what develops through multiple influences but it's a story nonetheless.
It's a fine line to walk though as you don't want a character becoming too important just to have her dying at the next corner. I agree with Scott that that's the main reason why many players don't like their characters to die. It's not about winning, it's about the story losing cohesiveness if PCs die to often. Or, as in your case, the characters staying irrelevant to the story so that they can die without negative consequences for the story.
Actualy it is your opinion that 'a huge number of people hate save or die and think they harm the game.' As I have never seen a huge amount of people ever say so(I don't consider what the twenty people on a message board and about ten people in real as a huge majority...). I personaly think save or die effects have their place in the game...I have seen them abused by GMs in the past...but so can anything really.
Both 4e and Pathfinder moved away from save or die and save or lose effects. I'm basing my idea that a general distaste for such effects exists on the idea that player concerns drive industry consensus when it comes to design issues.
And what is this large move you see in the industry away from leathality? WotC 4th ed? Is the only one I can think of...and Pathfinder reduced them...but did not get rid of them. Actualy the added more with the APG. So really only 4th ed D&D...which in my opinion is catering exclusively to one style of players...and I speculate their sales are hurting because of it.
Again, both 4e and Pathfinder have made significant efforts to level out the lethality of their systems. Just as it's not a lot of fun to be killed outright by a single orc's axe chop at 1st level, it's not a lot of fun to be killed outright by a failed Finger of Death save at 10th. Designers are moving towards mechanical design where players have the ability to be more reactive to threats.