On the other hand, the save or die mechanic can be incredibly boring. With a few dice rolls, the evening could screech to a halt as the vagaries of luck wipe out the party. A save or die situation can also cause a cascade effect. Once the fighter drops, the rest of the party's inferior AC and saving throws can lead to a TPK.Seems to tie back to my post 'How did death become boring?'
Never mind that you could actually set up a fund for your next character from the prior storing some loot somewhere.
But this 'it's boring'? It just seems to be a code, a way to get around saying 'I don't like losing'. Wait, more than that "I don't like losing, but I do like the flattery of seemingly coming up against a save vs death...so lets have a save vs deathhhhhhhhbutonlyifyouhavexamountofhitpoints! Yeah, I'm totally up against a save vs death, all right! Badass!"
It's not the reduction in risk/difficulty (big woop if someone wants to play an easy game), it's the apparent denial of such reduction that I'm shooting at. You can see the references to a 'good GM' throughout the post. The code is, a good GM works the apparent threat factor of a save vs death, but then never applies it (unless, using the old humbug 'the players do something really stupid'). It's all working on the illusion of death, but never delivering an actual capacity for it to occur. Classic illusionism.
Just drop the concept of save vs death. Or use it. There is no die.