In television and film we have the great ability to watch things from an outsider perspective...

In television and film we have the great ability to watch things from an outsider perspective, which allows the viewer to watch the bad guy do his bad thing, have character development, and have cool scenes where the main characters aren't directly involved. Take No County For Old Men for example. What if the only time we saw the antagonist was when he was seen by a main character? He wouldn't be nearly as interesting.

Anyways, the way this is Veeky Forums related is I want to know how the best way to use this narrative style is in tabletop? What is the best way to build anew antagonistic character, when the players can only see the antagonist when they are around?

I usually write out short stories and then pass them around to the players if they are interested. Sometimes it's something the player knows and the character doesn't, but usually I try to find an excuse for the story to reach their character in-universe too. Either by a video recording or something like that.

OP here I used to do that, but turns out I'm not a very good writer. How long were your short stories? Mine were like 4 pgs

It varied. If I just wanted to write out a brief meeting between two characters it might only be a few pages. If it was something more dramatic or drawn-out it might be closer to twenty or thirty pages. I tried to keep it as short as possible since I didn't want to pressure my players into reading a book. They seemed to really enjoy it, though.

I get the feeling a lot of people would be against it.

Not him, but I had a similar idea

Depending on the setting, you could hand out wanted posters or top secret dossiers on the villains in question.

Something that could provide an intimidating picture, a short description of his/her dastardly deeds, and a bounty price or threat level rating that could give the players a vague idea of just how dangerous they appear to be

Depends on the nature of the villain.

One option is what I'll call ocarina of time style. Have the party run into people who got fucked by the villain, or saw someone get fucked by the villain. Have the witness recount the event in such a way that the players gleen some knowledge about the villains abilities, goals, followers, and character.

Another option is to make the villain someone historical or famous (or in some way related to someone historical or famous), so they can learn about who and what the villain is through people who've heard about them or through research.

>What if the only time we saw the antagonist was when he was seen by a main character?
It worked for Nolan.

You should be mocked. Don't be that DM. This isn't your creative writing class. It's a game we play together.

Have players deal with the consequences of a BBEG's actions, rather than the BBEG.

It's an evil dragon? The cult that formed to kidnap people to feed it. The dragon isn't even involved--the cultists just know where to leave the bodies and it's like "whatever--snacks." Or it burned down all the village's crops, so the village-folk raided their neighbors and the PCs have to bring the two towns together in friendship. Or it murdered a king's caravan and the players are embroiled in a bitter succession dispute. The BBEG can be a catalyst to your adventures without being directly involved in them. And sure, eventually they've gotta go face it. But it isn't even aware of them, for most adventures.

But you can't just translate the movie narrative into a character-driven RPG. It doesn't work.

Other than the bank robbery, his meeting with the organized crime dudes, his conversation with harvey dent, everything he did in jail...

>Meanwhile, elsewhere...

Have an interlude featuring the antagonist and his associates. It's a fine line to walk, because you can end up coming off as masturbatory, but it's the best way to do it.

Do you really want your players to empathize with the antagonist?

For the most part that seems sort of counterproductive, since most GM's struggle to really get the players motivated to oppose the villain as much as possible, rather than to develop sympathy for them. But, if you can develop a good reason for it, say the old cliche that the antagonist is otherwise invincible and the players need to discover some clue in order to defeat him, then I guess it's may be worth turning the battle against that villain into a rather bittersweet moment.

If the goal is to see things from an "outsider" perspective, there's a number of easy devices to let that happen. If the players are disguised, hidden, astral projected, or otherwise unable to act as they normally wish to, they are effectively witnesses rather than true participants. I think J.K. Rowling, while using the biggest narrative cheat I've ever seen in writing, did a fine job with her exposition of Voldemort. Going through his past using the Pensieve allowed the reader a chance to understand the villain, while also advancing the story by having this be necessary to defeat him.

However, the problem with all this is that this is rarely what players want, and you really couldn't do this very often or for any great length of time. Players get bored when they're not active, and having them sit in various shades of passivity as you essentially read diary entries doesn't sound like a great time.

Maybe have the players control two characters each, with one aiding the villain and one opposing them? Of course, that leads back to the original problem of the players having mixed interests, alongside a whole new slew of problems (such as having to juggle to campaigns simultaneously), but the idea of the players playing a regular campaign, with a short intermission or epilogue at the end of each session where they get a chance to roleplay as one of the villain's lieutenants (plotting their next step), might not be too bad.

> For the most part that seems sort of counterproductive, since most GM's struggle to really get the players motivated to oppose the villain as much as possible, rather than to develop sympathy for them.

Seriously??? I only play with murder hobos, they kill EVERYONE and take their stuff

Make a villain who works better when the heroes know little about them instead of trying to force a different narrative style on tabletop. Have them make actions that the PCs would have to think a bit to understand.

I second this suggestion. The interlude helps set the tone of the game, show *some* plot elements that the PCs couldn't possibly know or be involved in, and allows the GM to define the antagonist more clearly.

Keep it short, 5 minutes max.

If the players are bored by so much exposition, show an action scene. If they're still bored, allow them to briefly play an NPC in the scene, such as a military general defending a base against the villain, or a rival necromancer getting eaten alive by the villain's undead army of cockroaches.

These are called establishing shots in film, as they establish who the antagonists are and what they're like...and what they're capable of doing.

Character development is as important for villains and NPCs as it is for PCs. You don't want the villain to be just some Level 18 dude who fights the PCs for 5 rounds at the end of a 9-month-long campaign.

Not that guy but you have to show them that there are consequences for murderhoboing and if they're ok with that have the villain be law enforcement.

encourage PCs to scry on the bad gu

There's a difference between "we need to kill this guy because he's got stuff I want/he's in the way/it's Tuesday"
and
"We need to seriously kill this motherfucker. Don't care if I die, don't care if I need to spend every last groat I got, don't care if the entire world burns down to fine ash, that motherfucker needs to die."

I usually have the players learn about the villain from other folks who have met him or been affected by him. I find it to be a bit of a strength, that players don't witness much with the antagonist as it forces the gm to show not tell that the villain is a threat, and allows for a lot of story if the players try to investigate the villain and learn more about him. It gives a slightly investigative and mystery plot element to a lot of stories. The ambiguity that can be developed around a villain this way can be used to strong effect for providing terror and mystery. Players get more curious is an npc tries to run away or warns the players to go away when questioned about a villain than if the npc decides to dump exposition.
I think with the differences between film and rp'ing, it's best to try and play up the rpg form into strengths than it is to try to adapt film conventions into a different medium.

Several ways. I use them myself on a regular basis (since I know that as soon as my players meet the BBEG they'll just kill them)

>Have the players track the BBEG and witness the carnage he leaves in his wake. Destroyed towns, broken families, looted tombs etc
>Have the BBEG drop messages to the players and taunt them
>If your setting allows it and you've set up some sort of mystical connection before (like both the party and the BBEG interacted with some mystical stone or something) then let your players see the BBEG in a dream sequence
>News reports on what the BBEG is doing (assuming he's famous enough and the setting allows)
>If you can come up with some foolproof method, you can have the players directly witness the BBEG doing something but be unable to stop him for various reasons (Note that this is very hard to achieve and even harder to pull off without accusations of railroading. Use sparingly)

You could try running scenes where the players play different characters

>characters all get premade characters
>play a group of grunts while the bad guy sieges the city
>the outcome of their interaction with the army and the bad guy determines what the original characters encounter when they arrive
>ie, they are too late to save the city no matter what, but perhaps one of the grunts survived to tell them a critical bit of info