I can just see it now. The characters don't search for traps on the way in to a chamber, they don't check to see whether the chest is trapped, they ignore the warning they had from the prisoner they questioned telling them that there is a deadly poisonous trap in the chamber, they open the chest, a poison gas trap is set off... And no one is endangered because you don't have traps that kill you any more, the whole 'save or die' thing (whether its the trap trying to beat your defense or you making a save) has been dismantled.

Save or die traps, save or die monster poisons, they're known to be PC killers, always have been. As such, their correct use has always been 'cautiously'. It is, therefore, yet another mechanic that ain't broke.

My lord, the level of histrionics in this thread is impressive!

-O

It isn't histrionics.

Look again at this quote:

QuoteEver faced one of those life-or-death saving throws? Hours, weeks, or even years of play can hang in the balance. It all comes down to that one roll. There's drama in that moment, but it's drama you didn't create, and you don't want.

That's gone in the new edition.

Or, in other words, if your DM is an idiot and distils his entire plot down to whether or not a PC can make a saving throw, then you'll have no fun. Because of this unlikely occurrence (after all, if the DM has managed to keep the campaign running for so long he can't be THAT stupid) we're going to make it so you don't have a save or die moment any more. Or, in other words, if the DM has crafted a well thought out, fair, reasonable and challenging game, we don't care, we're removing that vital element of risk from the situation that you should have avoided. Thats because we favour idiots.

Quote from: cr0mI don't know--I'm just trying to figure out what they're getting at. My impression is that they're not trying to get away from deadly situations, but they are trying to get away from deadly situations resolved by a single saving throw. It's not very clear from the article though.

I agree entirely.

You can maintain drama and keep the tension of a saving throw when the results are suceed or fail without having to make it suceed or die.

Save-or-die is used to describe those situations where failing a single roll takes your character out of the game. They aren't tense situations regardless of how rare they are simply because it all depends on the luck of the dice.

A save-or-fail situation, where failure allows you to continue but at a penalty provides the same drama without excessively penalising a poor outcome on a single roll.

Moving a way from "the dice hate me so I died" towards "I had some poor rolls and made poor decisions (including to stick aroud after a bad roll) so I died" strickes me as a good thing.

Quote from: TrevelyanSave-or-die is used to describe those situations where failing a single roll takes your character out of the game. They aren't tense situations regardless of how rare they are simply because it all depends on the luck of the dice.

Not to harsh on the rest of your argument, because I do see this POV as simply a legit matter of taste, but chance through the roll of a die doesn't create tension? Dude, most of the games on the planet rely on chance as a vehicle of tension. Dice and cards are more than just mechanical variables that drive a game, they are unknown outcomes, from which excitement and tension can be created. That's one of the reasons they can televise the World Series of Poker, and people will actually watch it.

Quote from: JamesVAnd I probably will, but that's not the point.

I know it's pretty easy to house rule stuff, but at the same time effects that were save or die or even instant death, in previous editions lose their flavor and purpose, or are more suspect to exploitation. I mean just because some "death effect" can do 500 HP, doesn't mean it will kill you, especially with the PC hackers out there in the web.

How is "save or maybe die" goingto be more open to exploitation than "save or die?"

Disintigrate in 3.5 is still probably a death sentence. Likewise with Psychic Crush (save or be at -9 hit points). But because they're not automatic death sentences they maintain most of the drama without the bits that a lot of people find unfun or unfair.

Wussification. ´Nuff said.

Quote from: James McMurrayHow is "save or maybe die" goingto be more open to exploitation than "save or die?"

Disintigrate in 3.5 is still probably a death sentence. Likewise with Psychic Crush (save or be at -9 hit points). But because they're not automatic death sentences they maintain most of the drama without the bits that a lot of people find unfun or unfair.

Sorry, I was a little unclear with my first statement so let me clarify:
Effects that were save or die in previous editions lose their flavor and purpose, or are more suspect to exploitation, when they are adjusted to no longer cause instant death. Just because some "death effect" can do 500 HP, doesn't mean it will kill you when it lands, especially with the amount of PC hacking that can be done with the plethora of feats, talents, and class powers that I (admittedly) speculate will eventually appear in the new edition.

But largely, it's a matter of taste, my internet compatriot. "Still probably likely to cause death", is not the same as "definitely". Me and my group have no problem with definitely.

Quote from: CabOr, in other words, if your DM is an idiot and distils his entire plot down to whether or not a PC can make a saving throw, then you'll have no fun. Because of this unlikely occurrence (after all, if the DM has managed to keep the campaign running for so long he can't be THAT stupid) we're going to make it so you don't have a save or die moment any more. Or, in other words, if the DM has crafted a well thought out, fair, reasonable and challenging game, we don't care, we're removing that vital element of risk from the situation that you should have avoided. Thats because we favour idiots.

Right.  No histrionics.  Check.

There's a huge disconnect between the first part of your paragraph and the last part.

In the red part, you're saying that no DM should be stupid enough to make an entire campaign come down to one roll.  I agree with this; it's poor adventure design.  I think the 4e designers agree, too, to the extent that it won't be a real option unless someone houserules it in.

The green part has no relation to the red part.  Removal of a save-or-die effect doesn't cut out the elements of risk, it doesn't cut the challenge, and it doesn't mean there aren't situations your character should avoid.  Of course there will still be risk; I can't imagine otherwise.  "Whoops, you pressed the red button, despite the warning labels and the many peasants who told you not to.  The floor disappears and you fall into a GIANT POOL OF LAVA."  Give me a game where that's not a possible outcome.

Sure, there probably won't be insta-kill spells, and there almost certainly won't be insta-kill poisons built into the base game system.  These have been getting phased out for years, though.  Somehow, the game continues on.

-O

I'm willing to bet that the game will have been so sanitized of any possible risk for the precious little PCs that "Disintegrate" won't actually technically disintegrate anymore.

That's the kind of mentality these stupid fucks have: that its more fun to mollycoddle players and not make them be in any real risk ever.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JamesVNot to harsh on the rest of your argument, because I do see this POV as simply a legit matter of taste, but chance through the roll of a die doesn't create tension? Dude, most of the games on the planet rely on chance as a vehicle of tension. Dice and cards are more than just mechanical variables that drive a game, they are unknown outcomes, from which excitement and tension can be created. That's one of the reasons they can televise the World Series of Poker, and people will actually watch it.

Dice and card games involve tension usually because there is some other stake (frequently money) and no other means of resolution. In an RPG the assumption is that the actions of the PCs can alter the outcome, and the core drama derives from making the right decisions.

While I'll concede that tension can result from a single die roll, I'd argue that the relative value of this tension in an RPG differs frmo the same event in a dice game or poker due to the availability of these other variables.

I'd also suggest that an RPG that involve gambling style win-or-loose die rolls is missing much of the point of a game where decisions are supposed to play a significant roll. If players are relying on save-or-die for their thrills then why not just play poker? If, conversely, they feel that the role of the characters and the development of the story are of importance then why risk that on a random d20?

Quote from: RPGPunditI'm willing to bet that the game will have been so sanitized of any possible risk for the precious little PCs that "Disintegrate" won't actually technically disintegrate anymore.

That's the kind of mentality these stupid fucks have: that its more fun to mollycoddle players and not make them be in any real risk ever.

RPGPundit

Just when I was thinking that there wasn't enough unsubstanciated vitriol in this thread :rolleyes:

Quote from: RPGPunditI'm willing to bet that the game will have been so sanitized of any possible risk for the precious little PCs that "Disintegrate" won't actually technically disintegrate anymore.

That's the kind of mentality these stupid fucks have: that its more fun to mollycoddle players and not make them be in any real risk ever.

The thing is, I think those "stupid fucks" are right.  I think this is what a lot of players at a lot of game tables want.

Quote from: TrevelyanIf, conversely, they feel that the role of the characters and the development of the story are of importance then why risk that on a random d20?

Because the worlds they want to play in are harsh and unforgiving places, where capricious fate can ruin their plans and leave their PCs dead in the dirt. And they enjoy the tension that the eventuality of unforseen death can bring to the game. For a lot of us, the crackle of fear and desperation is a better buzz than the golden glow of heroic wish-fullifillment.

Quote from: jrientsThe thing is, I think those "stupid fucks" are right.  I think this is what a lot of players at a lot of game tables want.

It isn't going to keep people coming back for more though. Take the real danger out and you're just moving pieces around.