I'm a really crappy DM, aren't I?

[the_brazenburn]

This thread is probably kind of designed to repair my bruised ego, since I have recently got it into my head that I am not a very fair DM. The most recent campaign I have run is here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?540101-Ivor-and-Brazenbuns-Curse-of-Strahd-Farce

Among my many sins is giving every important villain a ring of teleportation, so that in a pinch I can save them from the adventurer, whether or not they are high enough level to reasonably own one.

Is there anything wrong with my DMing style, or with my teleportation method?

Also, if you have cruel DM moments, feel free to share them.

[Cespenar]

This thread is probably kind of designed to repair my bruised ego, since I have recently got it into my head that I am not a very fair DM. The most recent campaign I have run is here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?540101-Ivor-and-Brazenbuns-Curse-of-Strahd-Farce

Among my many sins is giving every important villain a ring of teleportation, so that in a pinch I can save them from the adventurer, whether or not they are high enough level to reasonably own one.

Is there anything wrong with my DMing style, or with my teleportation method?

Also, if you have cruel DM moments, feel free to share them.

That can get old real quick. Other, lower level ways to let your villains escape:

Fog Cloud, Invisibility, Expeditious Retreat, etc.

Throwing mooks in front of him, using horses, using secret doors, actually hiding, etc.

Also, have you tried not deus-ex-machina-ing your villain? It may give your players some sense of accomplishment if they could catch one once in a while. And you can upsell the next villain even better. And try out new fun villain builds.

[LeonBH]

Well, if your players are complaining you're a crappy DM and you don't want to adjust to them, then perhaps you are.

One way I can think of to "remedy" your sins is to let the PCs kill the villain (set up a Counterspell or something to prevent the escape), and then let the PCs loot the ring of teleportation.

But really, if your players are happy, you're doing a fine job.

[Unoriginal]

Well, first thing I notice reading the other thread:


The monk attempted a Medicine check to save his life. Nat 1. I ruled that it resulted in him accidentally cutting her open and dealing 1 damage. Thokk made a death save to avoid being killed by the extra damage and failed.

Why? A natural 1 on a check does not mean auto-failure, let alone bad consequences.

Is that an house rule you decided to implement constantly (aka: trying to heal might result in causing more damage), or was it just for this situation?


Among my many sins is giving every important villain a ring of teleportation, so that in a pinch I can save them from the adventurer, whether or not they are high enough level to reasonably own one.

Why? Villains are made to be defeated. Why give them magic items they shouldn't have to go "no the bad guy still escape, you didn't actually win".




But really, if your players are happy, you're doing a fine job.

True. Are your players happy about your DMing style, the_brazenburn?

[the_brazenburn]

They are happy, but I think they'd be pretty ticked off if they found out all the tricks I've got going in the background. The idea that I'm doing a bad job is all my own, not anybody else's.

[Talamare]

A natural 1 on a check does not mean auto-failure, let alone bad consequences.

Natural 1 resulting in consequences is an insanely common house rule

[the_brazenburn]

Well, first thing I notice reading the other thread:



Why? A natural 1 on a check does not mean auto-failure, let alone bad consequences.

Is that an house rule you decided to implement constantly (aka: trying to heal might result in causing more damage), or was it just for this situation?

When you go poking around dying people with a sharp scalpel, and your hand slips dramatically, you are definitely going to hurt your patient.

[smcmike]

Among my many sins is giving every important villain a ring of teleportation, so that in a pinch I can save them from the adventurer, whether or not they are high enough level to reasonably own one.

Inserting a preplanned escape route to allow for recurrent villains is basic plotting. Doing it over and over with the same method isn’t great, particularly if you are playing with the same group and the pattern becomes recognizable.

Also, what happens if your players get the ring?

[the_brazenburn]

Inserting a preplanned escape route to allow for recurrent villains is basic plotting. Doing it over and over with the same method isn’t great, particularly if you are playing with the same group and the pattern becomes recognizable.

Also, what happens if your players get the ring?

As I said, I'm terrible. If they did get the ring, I'd have another villain teleport in to try and steal it. Or maybe have it cursed with a ring of warding, or something equally unfair.

[The_Jette]

When you go poking around dying people with a sharp scalpel, and your hand slips dramatically, you are definitely going to hurt your patient.

Healer's Kits aren't supposed to include scalpels. They're supposed to include clotting agents, clean bandages, slings, tourniquet tools, etc. But, you're not performing field surgery. You're performing first aid. So, it really doesn't make much sense to cause further harm by "cutting" the person that you're trying to help. Accidentally pinching an artery, reopening the wound by binding it too tightly, or other things like that are more realistic. But, it's still an unnecessary addition to the game, imo.

[Laserlight]

It is a bit frustrating when your named, intended-to-be-recurring villain gets chased down and killed the first time the PCs meet him. I sympathize.

The next time around, I had them meet the villain when the PCs had just had a tough fight, and they had some redshirts with them so they could see how tough the villain was. The villain had regeneration and damage resistance and was as creepy as I could make him--the "withered sixty year old man with a little girl's voice" part made an impression. One of the players sacrificed himself to grab the old warlock and throw him down a sacrificial well (fully expecting to get dragged down with him, but a well-timed 20 avoided that). Then they started running and locking doors behind them. And running harder when they heard him breaking the doors (and wiping out his allies' troops who were trapped in there with him). There was a platoon of hobgoblins blocking the pyramid exit, but the PCs dropped an alpha strike on them and kept running.

That was a fun session.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

When you go poking around dying people with a sharp scalpel, and your hand slips dramatically, you are definitely going to hurt your patient.A trained medic's hand should not "slip dramatically" once every 20 times they use a scalpel.

Why do you even need a ring of teleportation? Couldn't a Dimension Door (or an item thereof, which at least has some precedent) serve a similar purpose for a single villain while not being a lame, unreasonable auto-escape? It's easier to counter, and not a complete guarantee of escape, but that's a good thing.

[mgshamster]

The question is: Why do you feel the need to do all this?

Is there a reason every villain must have a magical escape? Are they a secret cabal of teleportation wizards? Or do you just not want them to be killed?

What's the reason behind what you do?

[the_brazenburn]

A trained medic's hand should not "slip dramatically" once every 20 times they use a scalpel.

Why do you even need a ring of teleportation? Couldn't a Dimension Door (or an item thereof, which at least has some precedent) serve a similar purpose for a single villain while not being a lame, unreasonable auto-escape? It's easier to counter, and not a complete guarantee of escape, but that's a good thing.

He wasn't a trained medic. He was an open hand monk who was more used to smashing people's heads in with hammer-fists than delicately healing injured barbarians.

[Laserlight]

Natural 1 resulting in consequences is an insanely common house rule

On a skill roll, a Nat 1 isn't even a guaranteed failure. If you have a DC10, the guy who has +9 on his skill is never going to fail that.
Of course, a Nat20 isn't a guaranteed success either.
Player: "I leap off the parapet and, uh...try to fly! I roll a Nat 20!"
Other player: "The dwarf rises majestically, flapping his arms!"
DM: "Heh. No, he does not. You hit the rocks far below, and take 20d6."

[Unoriginal]

Natural 1 resulting in consequences is an insanely common house rule

I know, and it's indeed insane how common it is.


When you go poking around dying people with a sharp scalpel, and your hand slips dramatically, you are definitely going to hurt your patient.

A 1 on the die does not mean your hand slips dramatically, in RAW. So again, why decide to apply this house rule here, knowing that the half-orc would probably die?

Something else I've noticed in the other thread:


The heartbroken monk managed to make it the rest of the way to Barovia, where he encountered Ismark Kolyanavich. After proving that the letter was a forgery, Ismark offered Lóng Quán a scroll of revivify if he would escort his "snakebitten" sister Ireena to Vallaki. That's where we ended the session: with Lóng Quán and a newly revivified Thokk escorting a lady that they knew to be fighting vampirism to a town they knew nothing about.

Revivify only works on people who died more than one minute ago. It also costs 300gp of diamonds per casting, to say nothing of the price of the scroll itself, which is rather mighty generous for someone to pay for the service of a no-name adventurer who already demonstrated he wasn't very competent.

So my question is, why kill the half-orc in the first place if you resurrected him right after with a spell that shouldn't have worked, payed by a guy who's spending a fortune and a chance at revival on the guy?


I'm not trying to give you an hard time or be a jerk, to be clear, I just want to know your reasoning.


Healer's Kits aren't supposed to include scalpels. They're supposed to include clotting agents, clean bandages, slings, tourniquet tools, etc. But, you're not performing field surgery. You're performing first aid. So, it really doesn't make much sense to cause further harm by "cutting" the person that you're trying to help. Accidentally pinching an artery, reopening the wound by binding it too tightly, or other things like that are more realistic. But, it's still an unnecessary addition to the game, imo.

Also the Healer's Kit automatically stabilize, without Wis (Medicine) check.

If the Healer's Kit auto-stabilize without a scalpel poking innards, I don't think a Wis (Medicine) check would include one.


The question is: Why do you feel the need to do all this?

Is there a reason every villain must have a magical escape? Are they a secret cabal of teleportation wizards? Or do you just not want them to be killed?

What's the reason behind what you do?

This is the right question, yes.

[the_brazenburn]

I know, and it's indeed insane how common it is.



A 1 on the die does not mean your hand slips dramatically, in RAW. So again, why decide to apply this house rule here, knowing that the half-orc would probably die?

Something else I've noticed in the other thread:



Revivify only works on people who died more than one minute ago. It also costs 300gp of diamonds per casting, to say nothing of the price of the scroll itself, which is rather mighty generous for someone to pay for the service of a no-name adventurer who already demonstrated he wasn't very competent.

So my question is, why kill the half-orc in the first place if you resurrected him right after with a spell that shouldn't have worked, payed by a guy who's spending a fortune and a chance at revival on the guy?

I only allowed them to get the scroll so that the orc wouldn't have to stay dead. I never, ever, ever fudge rolls, so the orc's death was the fault of idiocy on the player's part and bad luck. It was the player's first time, so I didn't want the session to end on a bad note.

[the_brazenburn]

Also, as I think I've mentioned, the monk was not a certified healer with a healer's kit. He literally was trying to sew wounds with a dagger.

[Pex]

I wouldn't call a player wanting to save the life of another player's character being an idiot.

[Quoxis]

I only allowed them to get the scroll so that the orc wouldn't have to stay dead. I never, ever, ever fudge rolls, so the orc's death was the fault of idiocy on the player's part and bad luck. It was the player's first time, so I didn't want the session to end on a bad note.

As i see it (after reading this thread, not the one with the in-depth-explanations):
You can have your bbeg disappear deus-ex-machina-style.
You can have an npc resurrect a dead pc.
You can do anything you like, you're the gm, BUT you shouldn't overdo it.

A newbie's pc dies because they made a mistake? Resurrect them, BUT tell them (in character!) that they probably won't run into a rich stranger willing to do that again. One raising is on the house, but now the training wheels are off, the tutorial is over, and idiocy leads to character death. Don't be afraid to let them learn, as long as you're not unfairly killing them off.
A bbeg is crucial to the plot and isn't supposed to die yet? Let them escape if you must, BUT don't use the same trick twice (maybe the ring of teleporting was a non-rechargeable one, or it broke because he wanted to travel too far or something), and you'll probably wanna have your pcs have at least a little victory - the bbeg lost his overpowered weapon when he teleported, or he dropped his evil masterplan list and the pcs are at an advantage, able to set an ambush for the next battle or they can destroy hisplans more easily or... something. Anything that doesn't cheat them entirely out of their accomplishment.

Also: if a pc can be raised, why not a bbeg? If he gets killed, a deathknight appears a few weeks later, heavily breathing beneath his black helmet, which he lifts to show he's the reanimated bbeg, but with stronger sith evil powers than before.

[Quoxis]

I wouldn't call a player wanting to save the life of another player's character being an idiot.

Explain how sealing a wound with a dagger is not idiotic.

It's about HOW the player did it, not the fact that he wanted to.

[Sigreid]

As a player, I dislike recurring villians and do everything in my power to settle things at the first match. I'd actually be pretty ticked to learn the game was rigged to ensure there was nothing I could do to settle things. But that's just me.

[The_Jette]

Explain how sealing a wound with a dagger is not idiotic.

It's about HOW the player did it, not the fact that he wanted to.

That he had to use his dagger is kind of a moot point. It should have been a Wisdom (Medicine) check, with a failed check (even a Nat 1) being nothing more than a failed check. As it is, a failed check killed the other PC.

[mgshamster]

So if a Nat 1 medicine check causes damage, what does a Nat 20 do? Bring a dead PC back to life? Bring the PC up to full HP?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Also, as I think I've mentioned, the monk was not a certified healer with a healer's kit. He literally was trying to sew wounds with a dagger.I hadn't read the context from the other thread, though you did mention a scalpel earlier. Let's suppose it's reasonable to rule that, with this unconventional healing method, doing it wrong should cause damage. If that's the case, any failure (or at least, any failure of more than X away from the DC) should cause damage, and the player should be warned of the risk ahead of the decision. There still is, and should be, nothing special about a natural 1 on an ability check except that it leads to an especially low result.

Also, trying to revive a comrade without a kit/proficiency shouldn't impose additional penalties all else equal. The cost is that you don't automatically succeed (kit), and you don't get to add your proficiency bonus to the roll (training), so you are much much more likely to fail already. Even if you want to argue that using a dagger is an especially bad way of administering first aid, above and beyond the problems of attempting to heal a friend untrained and without the best equipment, the disadvantage mechanic was literally made for this sort of adjudication. You don't have to add random PC-killing kludge.

GMs make goofs. It's a learning experience. Just recognize what it is and move on.

[Bloodcloud]

As I said, I'm terrible. If they did get the ring, I'd have another villain teleport in to try and steal it. Or maybe have it cursed with a ring of warding, or something equally unfair.

You should probably consider that no vilain survives contact with the players. If you absolutely need him to contact the players, have him use illusions or long range spells, use messengers, etc. The vilain escaping is a possibility, but NEVER EVER make him escaping necessary to your story. You'll just get disapointed when the arcane trickster catch on and sleight of mage hand the ring off him.

Also, make most of your intelligent critter try an escape when the fight turn to their loss. At some point one will succeed, and you'll have a memorable vilain right there.

[GlenSmash!]

As I read this I wonder: What does you gain by giving all of your BBEGs rings of teleportation. What do you gain by have nat 1's be failures on non-attacks?

For me to change adventures, and implement houserules I want to be very confident that the change will make the experience better for most if not all the people who sit at the table to play.

Otherwise why waste my time changing things?

[Throne12]

You can let your players fight and kill the bad guy. Then have the same bad guy show back up later. There are spells like revivify, rencarnate, Resurrection. Hell you can roll death saving throws for the big bad guy. And he can pass and just be unconscious for a hours. Player's rarely do anything with body's and just let them lay there. Shoot you Villain could have a clone lad set up for him self. That's the beauty of being a DM your npc's don't have to follow the character creation Process like PC's. You are the story teller npc's have what you give them. If you want your BBEG's to have teleporting rings then they have those rings. But come up with a convincing. Story to why they have them. Maybe all these rings look the same. Brandishing a symbol well later on the players find out that symbol belongs to a organization called
_ _ _ _ _. And this organization enchantes the rings with one teleportation spell. As a Insurance Policy for there members. Being a DM is about selling your Polished turds to your players. It easier for players to say Except yourt DM BS if there is some kind of story behind it and it just not some oh I needed him for this next scene.

Anyway sorry for the rant hope I could of been a bit of help.


P.S your not a Terrible DM your just a learning DM. We are not all perfect we still learn and make mestikes. If you were a terrible DM you wouldn't be asking for help or advice.

[The_Jette]

So, what is your villain, anyways? I mean, what class? If he's a wizard, or something like that, you could just have the "villain" melt into a puddle of water after the party "kills" him, and see if they can figure out that it's a Simulacrum of the actual villain, instead of the real one.

[Talamare]

On a skill roll, a Nat 1 isn't even a guaranteed failure. If you have a DC10, the guy who has +9 on his skill is never going to fail that.
Of course, a Nat20 isn't a guaranteed success either.
Player: "I leap off the parapet and, uh...try to fly! I roll a Nat 20!"
Other player: "The dwarf rises majestically, flapping his arms!"
DM: "Heh. No, he does not. You hit the rocks far below, and take 20d6."

By RAW, yea?

but if you're playing with Natural 1 rules then a Natural 1 is a Failure, regardless of success
Just like how a Natural 20 on an attack is a success, regardless of the target having 500 AC

The Dwarf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOKymYVSaJE

[ImproperJustice]

I dunno, in an old game of mine certain side plot BBEGs had “escape badges” that took them to their home base.

Later in that same campaign, the players got control of what was essentially a one shot space laser, and they all universally chose that enemy base.

It seemed to make the subsequent encounter with a group of those same villains extremely satisfying for the PCs when the first villain who was losing, tried to beam back home and got no answer. I can still see the collective evil grins of the players as they finally finished off the evil npc party.

All that to say: I think that if there is a pay off, it all works out. So long as the PCs get a sense of satisfaction or making a difference you are doing just fine.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Is there anything wrong with my DMing style, or with my teleportation method?

Yes to both. Your teleportation method arbitrarily removes the consequences for success (players actually defeating an enemy they beat).

And then this:


I only allowed them to get the scroll so that the orc wouldn't have to stay dead. I never, ever, ever fudge rolls, so the orc's death was the fault of idiocy on the player's part and bad luck. It was the player's first time, so I didn't want the session to end on a bad note.

Arbitrarily removes the consequences for failure (dying).

I’d argue that this is definitely worse: if you fudged the numbers (or didn’t randomly inflict damage to players with Medicine checks, but that seems to already be covered by everybody else), then at least there would be a point of dramatic tension that was resolved in a satisfactory way. If you didn’t fudge the numbers and left it at that, then at least you’d impress upon your players that their actions have consequences, and you’d give the event a certain degree of weight that could inform player motivations, or at least color their future actions with some caution.

But instead, you killed a PC... Because you don’t fudge rolls... But then immediately undermined the importance of that death by having an NPC with an exclamation mark revivify him... Because you DO fudge outcomes.

Both of these things lead me to ask: What agency do your players actually have in your game?

I’m becoming increasingly convinced that nothing your players do actually affects the outcomes unless you want it to. If the players kill someone in combat you don’t want killed... They teleport away from the combat. If the players die... They get revived. I wouldn’t be surprised if players who lose fights they were meant to win (because you don’t fudge numbers) are saved by high-level NPCs who should be doing this quest if the PCs can’t (because you are fudging outcomes), and if PCs save someone you intended to kill, they find a way to die offscreen or through a Final Destination-style rebound attempt. These things are not fundamentally different from the things you are already doing, and have the same end: removing risk or reward from the player’s actions. When DMs do this, I quickly start to feel like I’m not a character or a hero, but a spectator on a photo tour or the DM’s choosing... But you haven’t even chosen to do this in your own world, which you built from scratch and become emotionally invested through time and effort into the villains and plot lines you yourself have written. You are doing this in an out-of-the-book campaign literally tens of thousands of other people could run, which makes the decisions even more puzzling.

All told, I’m really not sure at all what you are trying to do... But yes, this does sound like crappy DMing.

[Guinea_Pig]

I'm of the opinion that the fact that you're critical of and looking to improve your DM style probably means you aren't that bad a DM. In my experience, bad DMs don't try to improve.

Recurring villains can be fun - the PCs are more motivated to defeat a villain they have a history with, and it makes sense for an intelligent villain to have an escape plan. Though of course you don't want to overdo it and get repetitive.

[Potato_Priest]

Well, personally I hate it when villains escape, and I especially hate the teleportation spell. It's the best spell in the whole book bar wish, hands down.

So, just get rid of the teleportation rings. If your players haven't encountered the villains yet it ought to be a simple enough procedure.

The fact that you're trying to improve is good. I've done some bad DMing in my time, and I'm sure every DM who actually cares about their craft has some things they did that they don't look back on with pride. Working on being better than you were is the key.

[lebefrei]

You are removing agency from the players. You are supposed to direct a world that they play in, and ideally that they can alter with few boundaries (unlike a video game). However, due to your DM style making decisions on what will happen, you are taking away their power and choice. So what if a player screws up and someone dies? It's up to the party to fix it then, not an NPC. Certainly not automatically and immediately before they can attempt to deal with the issue on their own. If you need to nudge them or hold their hands on figuring out something, let them attempt and fail, first.

As far as giving all villains an instant and guaranteed method of escape, that's a huge cop out to give them any real influence in the world. One of the most annoying tropes in video games is the boss fight that you can't win; you've turned all boss fights into this, and why? I still don't feel you've addressed this even with multiple people asking you. What is the point of letting everyone get away? Do you want a Saturday morning hero cartoon?

A living world of violence and intrigue has people die, and others move in to fill the vacuum. The players kill off a powerful wizard? So a sect of demon following warlocks move in to fill the void, that fixes the issue and gives them a new challenge instead of making them square off against the same enemy constantly.

[Citan]

I hadn't read the context from the other thread, though you did mention a scalpel earlier. Let's suppose it's reasonable to rule that, with this unconventional healing method, doing it wrong should cause damage. If that's the case, any failure (or at least, any failure of more than X away from the DC) should cause damage, and the player should be warned of the risk ahead of the decision. There still is, and should be, nothing special about a natural 1 on an ability check except that it leads to an especially low result.

Also, trying to revive a comrade without a kit/proficiency shouldn't impose additional penalties all else equal. The cost is that you don't automatically succeed (kit), and you don't get to add your proficiency bonus to the roll (training), so you are much much more likely to fail already. Even if you want to argue that using a dagger is an especially bad way of administering first aid, above and beyond the problems of attempting to heal a friend untrained and without the best equipment, the disadvantage mechanic was literally made for this sort of adjudication. You don't have to add random PC-killing kludge.

GMs make goofs. It's a learning experience. Just recognize what it is and move on.
Hi! ;)

I have to take sides with OP here.
Using a sharp tool, which you are not proficient with, to try and "heal" somebedy is bound to have consequences. The only case in which player should be warned of risks is if OP didn't implement natural failures as a permanent houserule. If he does? Then the player should just use his/her brain to decide whether it's worth the risk.

As for natural 1 = failure being illogical? One could say exactly the same with attacks: you are proficient with a tool, proficient in the action... Yet sometimes you fail miserably. Because you lost focus for a moment, because your opponent was extremely nimble, or because something totally unexpected happened...

That can be exactly the same with checks: you may think you know all the variables, yet you actually don't: **** happens, sometimes for clear reasons, sometimes for random reason.
In all games I played, whether as a player or a DM, whether D&D or otherwise, there was always this notion of "lowest roll = consequential failure". And everybody always had a blast with it. Conversely, the opposite was true too: highest roll = extremely efficient success".

The only thing to be careful about as the DM is to translate those concepts in an adequate manner depending on how difficult the desired result is to obtain.

To take OP example, of course a 1 would cause 1 damage. Maybe a 20 would have instead stabilized him so well he would have instead regained consciousness immediately with 1-2 HP.

To take another example, very simple, lockpick, with a moderately proficient Rogue (+8) against a DC 15: on a 1, I'd rule not only the Rogue failed, but his lockpick broke. On a 20, I'd rule that he was so careful yet so quick he managed to open the lock silently in a few seconds.
Or maybe if the lock was actually boobytrapped and he didn't check it, he would quickly detect it when inserting the lock and by sheer luck managing to disable it.

Now, these are easy to understand because I was speaking above of cases where the result was set anyways (1 or 7, would have failed anyways. 14 or more, would have succeeded anyways).

What happens if the character has a bonus plain enough to succeed with a 1? What happens if the character would actually need a 21 to succeed?
Those cases I personally rule on a game by game basis as a DM, asking players in session 0 what they prefer. They usually go with my houserules in both cases (which are extremely common in other games)
So I usually rule that...
When any roll would normally result in success, I rule that 1 is a half-fail (success with drawbacks).
When any check would normally be beyond character potential (ex +4 proficient, DC 25), I rule that 20 is half-success (either fail without drawbacks for the attempt, or a success with lesser effects than intended, or a success with consequences).

To pick again the lock ;) example:

Case 1 (should success on any roll): you managed to pick it but made a mistake and made some extra noise (high proficiency), or broke the lockpick in the process (medium), or broke the whole lock so door can't be closed (low). As for why a mistake? Maybe something internal (group drunk itself out last night) or external (creature coming raising alarm, big noise being heard not far that makes player wonder what happens, tense situation with enemies chasing them and inbound in handful seconds, etc).
Case 2 (should have no chance of success): either the same consequences as above (in case the difference needed to success is only 1-3) or something different depending on context and action.

Basically, me and players agree to follow the dice to create thrilling surprises whenever a 1 or a 20 comes out. And I create situations to describe on-the-fly that try to balance difficulty of action, player proficiency and general background, environmental context (calm/tense/hostile/etc) and what could be fun for everyone while staying relatively logical. :)

[Quoxis]

That he had to use his dagger is kind of a moot point. It should have been a Wisdom (Medicine) check, with a failed check (even a Nat 1) being nothing more than a failed check. As it is, a failed check killed the other PC.

As i see it (and that might be wrong) the player had the idea, it wasn't like the dm said "yo, you oughta use your dagger".
Assuming you had a first aid class once in your life (i'd say that's a normal 10 in medicine, without mods etc.), would you use a healers kit first aid kit or a conveniently placed kitchen knife to stabilize someone? If you decide to use the latter, it's very much your fault if you do more damage than you prevent.

Maybe the gm should've explained that they shouldn't do it or that they should use a healers kit instead, but that would've been an infringement of the player's "right" to do as they please - "the gm is never the player".

[Pex]

It's possible the player thought he should cauterize the wound. That procedure is mentioned every once in a while on some show or movie. I'll presume the player is not a doctor or nurse. The player likely hasn't a clue on how to treat severe injury and for game purposes he doesn't have to. Pop culture brings the procedure in mind but not knowing the vocabulary just says he uses a dagger. The dice roll determines the in character result of can he perform the procedure or whatever should really have been done. The low roll indicates he fails at the task.

DM fiat made the situation worse. It didn't have to be. At worse the patient continues making death saves. DM bias says the player was an idiot. No he was not. At worse the player was ignorant of what medical procedure to do but a PHD is not a requirement to play the game and attempt to heal a character.

[The_Jette]

As i see it (and that might be wrong) the player had the idea, it wasn't like the dm said "yo, you oughta use your dagger".
Assuming you had a first aid class once in your life (i'd say that's a normal 10 in medicine, without mods etc.), would you use a healers kit first aid kit or a conveniently placed kitchen knife to stabilize someone? If you decide to use the latter, it's very much your fault if you do more damage than you prevent.

Maybe the gm should've explained that they shouldn't do it or that they should use a healers kit instead, but that would've been an infringement of the player's "right" to do as they please - "the gm is never the player".

The OP already clarified that he had no healer's kit. If he had one, he probably would have used it. As it is, the DM decided that a 1 caused a critical failure in a skill check, which is a house rule. The question here is: why? Under RAW, rolling a 1 on a medicine check would result in a failure to stabilize, with the ability to try again in the next round, assuming the character doesn't fail his final death check in the meantime. The DM decided that because the player botched a roll, the other player's character died. Does that add anything to the game? Maybe. But, what does it add. Also, since the character didn't have any other tools, the dagger might have been the only thing the player could think of. Maybe he was thinking of using it to apply pressure to a bleeding wound. Maybe we was thinking of using it to stabilize a broken bone. Or, maybe he wanted to pry a piece of debris from a wound to keep infection from settling in. Regardless, all of that would be fluff. The only thing that should have mattered was the Medicine roll. And, there's no mention of if the players had been informed that there would be a house rule about natural 1's being a crit fail for skill checks.

[Ivor_The_Mad]

Ok first of all, YOU GAVE EVERY VILLAN A RING OF TELEPORTATION??!?!! Second yes you are a cruel dm.

And hey I have a great bad DM moment!!! So i'm currently playing a monk on an open hand monk on a Curse of Strahd campaign and the dm decides to have my character bitten by a vampire. Not that bad YET. The second time we meet Strahd guess what I get bitten again... I must taste good. Or the time he singled out Blinsky and poor little Piccolo.

But in all fairness Brazenburn is not a bad DM for the most part but there are some parts that you are lacking in but CoS has been fun so far. Except for the leeches... and the bad fizbop cameo... and the relentless wolf attacks :smallbiggrin:


but I think they'd be pretty ticked off if they found out all the tricks I've got going in the background.
and what might those be?

And the_brazenburn NO WOMAN FIZBOP WITH OPOSED STRENGTH CHECKS.

[Ivor_The_Mad]

As a player in the campaign I just have to say that the_brazenburn is not a BAD dm. But a few mistakes were made
He literally was trying to sew wounds with a dagger. it was a dart which is a little bit like a needle

[Throne12]

Hi sorry for popping back in but here a few more tips.

1. Try running premade campaigns with no house rules. Follow everything by the book. Just untell you are more comfortable with DMing.
2. This may sound mean but follow the rules of the game and don't be sorry. If a player charges into a fight then get dropped to 0 and is making death save. Don't be sorry don't feel like you need to save them. As long as your following the rules.

[MadBear]

This thread and the OP are very confusing.

1. The fact that you seem to want to improve as a DM probably means you aren't a bad Dm.

2. The fact that you're doing things you know aren't good, and do them anyway probably means you are a bad Dm.

I mean, if I walked into a hospital and I overheard:

a doctor say "Man, I really need to make sure I use clean scalpels, so I don't kill patients, but also, I'm probably going to keep using dirty scalpels" I'd walk right back out the door.

That's kinda what you're doing. You know giving every bbeg a ring of teleportation is a bad idea, but you'll keep doing it. Worse, if the PC's manage to get it, you'd have another bbeg swoop in to steal it. I mean, when you find yourself making stuff up like this, you're probably on the wrong path.

[Beelzebubba]

Going easy on a new player is fine, but teleport comes across as the cheapest, lowest effort, most annoying way to let your BBEGs escape. If you want low level BBEGs to escape, then set up the encounters in ways that give it the potential to happen without straining credulity and makes it look like you are building a game scenario that is beatable, rather than something you decree by fiat.

And, make it legally. Add mooks. Add an escape tunnel that the bad guy has to get to. Give him some legit level-appropriate methods for delaying the party for his escape, like a Scroll of Gust of Wind that slows down the party long enough, or a flaming barrel of oil rolling down the hallway, or whatever.

And, if they catch the bad guy, well, they will feel fantastic about it.

[the_brazenburn]

A trained medic's hand should not "slip dramatically" once every 20 times they use a scalpel.

Why do you even need a ring of teleportation? Couldn't a Dimension Door (or an item thereof, which at least has some precedent) serve a similar purpose for a single villain while not being a lame, unreasonable auto-escape? It's easier to counter, and not a complete guarantee of escape, but that's a good thing.

My point here is that the villains are way, way too low level to have access to spells like Dimension Door or teleportation rings. The most recent one used the stats of a priest.

[robbie374]

My point here is that the villains are way, way too low level to have access to spells like Dimension Door or teleportation rings. The most recent one used the stats of a priest.

If you want your villain to survive, he should survive the same way as the players: according to his level and class abilities, running away as fast as he can. He can Hide. He can use distractions. But he shouldn't get fancy magic that the players can't touch.

If you want him to be truly recurring, he should be higher enough in power that the PCs can't beat him and have to run away themselves, but not so high that he would instantly kill them.

Enemies teleporting away isn't fun at all. It is only fun if the players know it will happen and if the point of the battle becomes to capture or kill the enemy before he teleports. If the players outsmart your villain and catch him, the villain deserves it, the PCs should be rewarded, and you can create a new villain next time.

Also, the miserable failure on nat 1 thing is often overplayed. A critical hit always hits. A critical miss always misses. This is already balanced. But if your nat 20 rewards don't equal or exceed your nat 1 punishments, then you are just hurting the players, who will roll far more 1s than their enemies as they roll more frequently.

[MadBear]

My point here is that the villains are way, way too low level to have access to spells like Dimension Door or teleportation rings. The most recent one used the stats of a priest.

If you know it's unreasonable for the villains to have these items, why are you giving them these items?

[croftstr]

I echo the opinion that as long as your players are having fun, then do as you please. You may want to challenge yourself in new ways though. Are you getting tired of them teleporting?

[emulord]

Recurring villains are fine, but you should predefine their escapes, and probably have them escape no more than once so your players don't get frustrated.

Examples I've used as a DM or seen as a player:
Last surviving bandit - runs away, but doesnt have a horse and gets run down.

Goblin scout climbs up a rope then cuts it.

The Painter - an Illusion / necromancer wizard. Escapes with a illusion of a ghost to a low level party that has no magic weapons so he can run with expeditious retreat.

Thief used a scroll of teleport

A young white dragon who successfully robbed the boat - Just flies away, what are you going to do about it with only 1 party member with flight over ocean?

Jack of Hearts - Trapdoor, but he lost initiative and died before he could get there.

Willy wonka - Contingent teleport to his office upon taking damage. He also had a clone body. He got one-shot so they could loot the body, but he still exists as a (weaker) villain.

Strahd turns into mist to go to his coffin. Found his coffin before the hour was up and holy blasted it for the kill.

[Dalebert]

It's great to have ideas and strategies for an encounter, but be careful about scripting your encounters. I've seen DMs bend over backwards to ensure that the encounter goes as they have scripted it in their minds. The DM already controls everything else in the world other than the PCs. You should give the PCs a little bit of leeway to help write the story. If you use a lot of deus-ex-machina, your PCs can end up feeling very dis-empowered and almost like they're just there to watch a story you wrote play out. It can feel like "Why do I even need to be here?"

[Quoxis]

I mean, if I walked into a hospital and I overheard:

a doctor say "Man, I really need to make sure I [don't] use clean scalpels daggers, so I don't kill patients, but also, I'm probably going to keep using dirty scalpels daggers" I'd walk right back out the door.


Fixed that for you.

[GlenSmash!]

Fixed that for you.

A player form the campaign has informed us it was a dart, not a dagger. Whether or not that is a significant difference is up to interpretation.

[The_Jette]

A player form the campaign has informed us it was a dart, not a dagger. Whether or not that is a significant difference is up to interpretation.

Depending on how the dart is built, you can either take the blade off and attempt to use it as a needle for stitches; or, it's just basically a smaller dagger that would be just as bad. We really need to know more about how the DM judges the dart works. Although, since he said that the guy was trying to sew up his buddy with a knife, I'm guessing he has more of the second kind in mind.

[Unoriginal]

Fixed that for you.

You completely missed the analogy of the person you replies to. It had nothing to do with the healing Nat 1, it was about how OP went "I feel I'm a bad DM because I do X thing, but I'm not going to stop doing X"

[Quoxis]

You completely missed the analogy of the person you replies to. It had nothing to do with the healing Nat 1, it was about how OP went "I feel I'm a bad DM because I do X thing, but I'm not going to stop doing X"

I know, i thought it was obvious i was making a joke... Should've used blue font, people seem to not get jokes otherwise.