Quote from: CRKrueger;519530Hmm lets see...

Medusa save or turn to stone...Stone to Flesh
Giant Spider poison save or die...Neutralize Poison or Slow Poison.
Ghoul save or be paralyzed...Remove paralysis

Which of these were save or automatic instant death again, oh yeah NONE OF THEM.

So he starts off by saying how awesome these encounters can be in the hands of a good GM, and then basically says "Oh, but none of our GMs are any good, we bred that out of them." and comes up with more crutches for GMs who don't need them.

You'd better be kicking his ass half for this one Pundit or you forfeit the right to appear as Bill the Butcher.

Newfags can't save, eh?

Quote from: CRKrueger;519530Hmm lets see...

Medusa save or turn to stone...Stone to Flesh
Giant Spider poison save or die...Neutralize Poison or Slow Poison.
Ghoul save or be paralyzed...Remove paralysis

Which of these were save or automatic instant death again, oh yeah NONE OF THEM.

.

As has been said with the right spell instant death isn't peramanent so saying yeah but I can fix this with a spell is a bit daft.
Also you meet a wondering medusa what are the odds you happen to have teh right spell or can find someone that does. I suspect I woudl prefer my PC to die than to be made to wait 4 sessions whilst they find someone with the right spell to fix it

I like poison doing damage over rounds the number and effect of the poison varying I can see a 'super' poison doing 20+1d10 a round for 5 rounds or whatever. Poison is rarely instantly lethal and the fighter who knows they have been hit and has worked out they have 3 rounds to live makes for some great drama.

so I say keep save or 'here is the effect' just make death really rare and other effects more common.

Quote from: CRKrueger;519530Hmm lets see...

Medusa save or turn to stone...Stone to Flesh
Giant Spider poison save or die...Neutralize Poison or Slow Poison.
Ghoul save or be paralyzed...Remove paralysis

Which of these were save or automatic instant death again, oh yeah NONE OF THEM.

This is correct. None of these scenarios are ACTUAL save or die situations. If you want to mitigate the Medusa turning people to stone, then as a DM place a previous expedition party that got killed prior to reaching the Medusa's lair with the dead party's wizard clutching a Stone to Flesh parchment in his dead fingers.

If the Giant Spider's poison is a problem, make it a few rounds before actual death and provide means to Slow Poison and Neutralize Poison in the environment the PCs can reach and use.

And so on.

The point of these creatures is that you should be careful with them and not act like a complete moron to charge them in the open, get within their reach, or within eye sight.

Basically, that comes down to the whole thing about Save or Suck/Die effects: this isn't a problem of rules that need a rules fixing. It's about considering these effects from a broader environmental perspective. If your PC is rolling for Save or Die... he's already made a fatal mistake to put himself in this situation in the FIRST PLACE.

SOD actually works when (1) you provide means to the PCs to realize there is a SOD situation ahead of them, i.e. they have a chance to know the nature of this threat so they can prepare, strategize, use stuff they've found previously to deal with that threat or avoid it completely, and (2) you provide such means of avoidance so the PCs don't HAVE to confront a SOD situation or stop the adventure dead in its tracks, which means the SOD effect or creature is NOT the center piece of your adventure, that your dungeon layout is NOT linear and that the lair of the Medusa can be avoided in a number of ways, etc.

It helps to consider a SOD situation or monster as a feature on the map's flow, rather than an isolated encounter (which shows that the notion the game is all about the Precious Encounter is a TERRIBLE mistake of game design because it creates an utter and complete myopia on the part of the DM as to the way all these building blocks interlock to create the overall environment. The map should be the focus of the game, not the encounter): imagine two choices in a room: if you go right, you will reach dungeon level 2 faster but you see all these statues of guys pretrified down the stairs, skulls, blood splatters and so on - you know something is going on down that corridor that is really-fucking-dangerous - or you go left, face thrice as many different threats, waste precious time and resources, probably will have to set camp before reaching level 2, but it'll be safer - at least that's what the kobold you questioned earlier told you. Which path do you take?

That's what SOD does in practice: it is supposed to be an ingredient to help the DM come up with interesting choices. It's about how SOD is put into use in the environment. Not about the SOD itself. As I said: if you are rolling for SOD, you've already committed a grave mistake as a player or made a conscious choice to put yourself in this situation.

This brings up stuff like Assassination and the like. This is another topic altogether. Should there be a chance for your character to be killed outright in combat by an Assassin hiding in the shadows? Given the shift and importance of one PC to its player now (as opposed to multiple deaths and PCs in AD&D say), I don't think that'll work well with many people. Instead, make Save or Die into Save or Disable. People struck by a dagger from an Assassin go down, but they aren't instantly killed (like the death and 0 Hit Points rules in AD&D - you're out, but you can be healed, stabilized, whatnot: your character isn't dead dead unless he receives damage while helpless, which should make protecting the fallen character a priority to the other members of the party, assuming cooperation).

There are ways to make these elements work for many DMs and many styles, but trying to fix a mistake in the understanding of the game's flow by changing the mechanics behind the effect is a mistake. One should teach those DMs how to design their exploration environment effectively and think about the way the various elements have an effect on each other so they can put these SOD situations in play in appropriate game contexts the PCs can manage on their own.

The game isn't solely about immediate encounter tactics. It shouldn't be. It's ALSO about strategy, and meaningful strategic choices in particular. Center the whole design on the encounter, and you destroy an important strategic dimension of the game's play.

Stop trying to fix everything with rules for fuck's sakes. This is NOT a good game designer's job you are doing, Mike, when you are isolating one component of the game (its rules) and completely ignoring its other moving parts. Wake up. Take your head out of your Crunch-tist ass. There's more to the game than just its mechanical parts. Try considering their role and influence on the game's play for a change.

Quote from: CRKrueger;519530Hmm lets see...

Medusa save or turn to stone...Stone to Flesh
Giant Spider poison save or die...Neutralize Poison or Slow Poison.
Ghoul save or be paralyzed...Remove paralysis

Which of these were save or automatic instant death again, oh yeah NONE OF THEM.

In the new design realm "death" equals anything that could keep you from kicking ass and looking utterly heroic for more than a round or so or that does not afford the ability to shake such a condition off every round.

Anything else is unfun. Consequences are unfun if they interfere with being heroic!

Paying attention to ones surroundings.....scratch that...THINKING is unfun!!

We get all this shit because whiny pussies take the game far too seriously. So your precious character got bit by a big spider and died, so what? Shit happens.

Play a game in which character creation isn't such a pain in the ass and death won't be either.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;519583In the new design realm "death" equals anything that could keep you from kicking ass and looking utterly heroic for more than a round or so or that does not afford the ability to shake such a condition off every round.

Anything else is unfun. Consequences are unfun if they interfere with being heroic!

Paying attention to ones surroundings.....scratch that...THINKING is unfun!!

We get all this shit because whiny pussies take the game far too seriously. So your precious character got bit by a big spider and died, so what? Shit happens.

Play a game in which character creation isn't such a pain in the ass and death won't be either.

It has less to do with not being awesome and more to do with how long you end up sitting on your hands. Being disabled isn't a big deal if combat takes 5-15 minutes to resolve. In big cumbersome editions like 3E and 4E, where combat takes 30-45 minutes at the low end and can run over an hour easily, being disabled detracts from the game.

Quote from: Benoist;519550This is correct. None of these scenarios are ACTUAL save or die situations. If you want to mitigate the Medusa turning people to stone, then as a DM place a previous expedition party that got killed prior to reaching the Medusa's lair with the dead party's wizard clutching a Stone to Flesh parchment in his dead fingers.

If the Giant Spider's poison is a problem, make it a few rounds before actual death and provide means to Slow Poison and Neutralize Poison in the environment the PCs can reach and use.

.

I am shocked you would use such narrativist story element sin your game .... I mean the last party just happened to have a flesh to stone scroll they didn't have time to use ? What are the odds of that?   I explained how to kill a medusa already close your eyes and fight blind.

Poison I agree with over time but again I wouldn't provide access to poison prevention unless the PCs thought of it themselves and with wandering monsters that is an unlikely thing to think of.

I don't like the Computer game fix where you need to have found the magical vial of Milk of magnesia in order to beat the Acid ooze in the final room.
By all means foreshadow the medusa with some stoney adventureres but that is just to flag up the risk not give them the magical muguffin that will let them beat it.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;519584It has less to do with not being awesome and more to do with how long you end up sitting on your hands. Being disabled isn't a big deal if combat takes 5-15 minutes to resolve. In big cumbersome editions like 3E and 4E, where combat takes 30-45 minutes at the low end and can run over an hour easily, being disabled detracts from the game.

A good DM will have options available so that a player never has to sit on their hands too long. A henchman,other NPC, or even a monster can be played until the current action ends.

For those who would rather sit and sulk than play anything other than their little snowflake let them.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;519584It has less to do with not being awesome and more to do with how long you end up sitting on your hands. Being disabled isn't a big deal if combat takes 5-15 minutes to resolve. In big cumbersome editions like 3E and 4E, where combat takes 30-45 minutes at the low end and can run over an hour easily, being disabled detracts from the game.

Solution: FASTER COMBAT.
Not "fixing" poison and medusas.

Quote from: jibbajibba;519587I am shocked you would use such narrativist story element sin your game .... I mean the last party just happened to have a flesh to stone scroll they didn't have time to use ? What are the odds of that?

When I am coming up with the environment, mapping my dungeons (or coming up with murder investigations, conspiracies, what-have-you) and including various choices and opportunities for the PCs to choose from, I am not thinking in terms of stories or narratives. I'm thinking in terms of providing players with actual tactical and strategic choices as they play the game.

This is not the same thing.

Quote from: beejazz;519591Solution: FASTER COMBAT.
Not "fixing" poison and medusas.

That would be my fix, for starters faster combat would fix so much more. I cringe in horror when I see 3.5 combats last two sessions of play.

Quote from: Benoist;519592When I am coming up with the environment, mapping my dungeons (or coming up with murder investigations, conspiracies, what-have-you) and including various choices and opportunities for the PCs to choose from, I am not thinking in terms of stories or narratives. I'm thinking in terms of providing players with actual tactical and strategic choices as they play the game.

This is not the same thing.

Dude you place objects for the PCs to find specifically to assist the PCs solve a problem...
there is no logical reason why a scroll as you describe would be there.

Now I have no issue with that but its a spade anyway you look at it

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;519584It has less to do with not being awesome and more to do with how long you end up sitting on your hands. Being disabled isn't a big deal if combat takes 5-15 minutes to resolve. In big cumbersome editions like 3E and 4E, where combat takes 30-45 minutes at the low end and can run over an hour easily, being disabled detracts from the game.

Then SHORTEN COMBAT. The low end should be 5 to 10 minutes and the high end maybe 25-30 minutes, with the most combats taking 15 minutes max. Longer than 15 minutes or so should only be for important, complex, and/or "boss" combats. Shortening combat back down to TSR D&D lengths would solve a lot of problems.  

Have an optional module of tactical combat rules for those who really want 45 to 120 minute combats. And in that module (only) they can get rid of save vs death/disable if they want to because it boreas people in long combats.

Quote from: jibbajibba;519605Dude you place objects for the PCs to find specifically to assist the PCs solve a problem...
there is no logical reason why a scroll as you describe would be there.

Actually yes, there is, if said party of adventurers had themselves known about the Medusa (and maybe lost some party members who were petrified previously... which could still be returned to life by the PCs, maybe with their own agenda and information about the complex...), wandered about the dungeon and came back for it with the scroll before getting killed there.

Quote from: jibbajibba;519605Now I have no issue with that but its a spade anyway you look at it

Nope. It just doesn't make sense to you in the narrow way you are looking at it. Sorry, mate.

If I was the main guy at WotC and I was reading all the various threads (including this one) on what people think about every little possible change proposed, I'd realize that no matter what WotC does, a good chunk of people are going to be pissed about it. At that point, I'd just ignore the lot of them and make a game I liked, and tell the gamers to suck it.

Quote from: danbuter;519616If I was the main guy at WotC and I was reading all the various threads (including this one) on what people think about every little possible change proposed, I'd realize that no matter what WotC does, a good chunk of people are going to be pissed about it. At that point, I'd just ignore the lot of them and make a game I liked, and tell the gamers to suck it.

They already did that last time