Shooting at the villain before he gets a chance to say anything

m.youtube.com/watch?v=02OfZVyd6bE

But how does that make the morality of the situation disappear? Ignorance is bliss?

I'll take that over some banal "but I'm the TRUE good guy" monologue any day.

>your buddy shoots the villain while he's talking, denying the player any choice in the matter

YES. REDEEMED THE GAME FOR ME.

That fucking cunt ruined the whole game for me.

Why else would Int and Wisdom be a common dump stat for paladins?

Jesus Christ, I've never noticed just how good GIECO's cgi is in their commercials.

Ironic how their actual insurance is pretty garbage, from what I've heard.

This is acceptable, because we already knew his deal, and just hated him SO FUCKING MUCH

pic related

It's all about whether the group are on the same page or not.

Genre conventions are something that should always be acknowledged and discussed- Are they a part of the game or not? To what extent to things follow or subvert them? Establishing that common ground is vital, and avoids moments where what one player might consider a natural reaction seems like disruptive bullshit to the rest of the group.

Are you suggesting that moral and ethical dilemmas don't exist if you don't hear them outloud?

Or just that they're going to make you feel weird later do don't listen?

This desu

>FUCK YOU DAD!
>"The fuck are you talking about, I don't even know yo-"
>*shoots him*
>I just had to be sure.

Reaver shooting the villain was an enormous dick move although it required reloading and replaying the last mission again to to realize it because I cut the fucker down the moment he lost his invulnerability.

At first I thought the game had glitched and I'd missed the boss fight. But no. It was just lazy writing.

What grinds my gears more is that there is no option to string Reaver up from a lamp post with piano wire.

Not even in 3 when you are king, he has previously tried to kill you, you know he is cultivating were-wolves and you can't even kick him out of governmental office.

Choo Choo! All aboard the Molyneux Rail Road!

Garth was the only hero I could stand, and even he had bouts of utter stupidity.

"Hmm, that giant pyramid looks to be ancient dark magic, shoot at it to see what happens. What? It wants to kill us!? We can't just destroy this artifact!"

Or he could have been about to release a pack of rabid Wolverines.
Or push the button to release his doomsday device
Or execute a captive
Or try some dumb shit like saying we're not so different because he slaughtered innocent defenseless people, while I had to kill people he threw in my way to stop him.

So nah, fuck him and fuck anything he has to say.

>I cut the fucker down the moment he lost his invulnerability.
personally i was unaware until just now that Reaver even did anything in that situation

Frogposting, on Veeky Forums? What a disappointment. I thought this board was spared that shit.

>Not knowing your dad
My character isn't a nigger.

That's obviously a turtle.

who cares retard its about winning

if you arent ruining your retarded dms day ur doing it wrong

>Every time you beat a boss, they join your entourage.

You don't get to play much do you?

This.

Maybe your players actually like the villains you've developed as a DM and want to hear more from them?

not my fault fucking dms are pussies that get pissed as fuck when they lose

Ignore them. They're either a troll or the type if irredeemable idiot who actually likes adversarial GMing.

haha you sound like such a hipster faggot

0/10 Try again friend. Next time don't make it so obvious by coming on too strong.

You say that, but you're still answering him

nou

My only issue with this is that I had a player who would do this mid description of the perfectly aware boss(who sometimes was being described as part of said encounter's surprise round) thinking it would allow him to just not have to roll initiative.

Since when does judging a troll equal to falling for it's bait?

That's silly.

I don't want an answer to that question, if you insist i'll kill this branch of the conversation here.

> >shooting at the villain before he gets a chance to say anything
>giving a villain a chance to speak, so that he can silver-tongue his way out of the situation
Nah.

Even if he was my dad, the fucker was going to be shot anyway, so I would prefer to get it over with and go the fuck home to the family I actually do care about.

>moral and ethical dilemmas don't exist if you don't hear them outloud?
That's how it works in fiction.

If the GM never gets a chance to establish an ethical dilemma, then he might feel weird about having it bite the players in the ass. Or said ass-biting moment might not have the impact he wanted because the players don't have the context necessary to understand it.

But then aren't you actively working against having a compelling and enjoyable experience by doing your utmost to avoid them?

...

That's how BlackLivesMatter does it.

But your mom is a whore

>he could have been a hook for more retarded adventures or some shit

nah i'd rather be lord of my own destiny.

My players do this all the time. And then are utterly confused about what the bad guys plan was/is.

Also, notes,databases, and friendly NPCs trying to clue them in are for pussies. Apparently.

>not roleplaying your characters doubts about the unknowable other and violence

>So nah, fuck him and fuck anything he has to say.

Honestly this. If he's the villain then he's probably done something which makes me totally uninterested in hearing his reasons why. If he hasn't, then he's not really a villain and I don't know why he's KOS.

It's not murderhoboing if the person you're attacking has objectively done awful things to you, your friends, and others.

>DM puts "A Boy Named Sue" on

Came here for this.

> it was a smoke and mirrors setup
> you just broke a mirror. That's bad luck.
> -2 to all rolls for the next 7 sessions
> The villain laughs maniacally from around the corner and jumps out a window, zip-lining to safety now that his plan is complete

If you're going to be so predictably "edgy" and "pragmatic" in a setting clearly build round dramatic tropes, I'm going to make you feel as foolish as you are acting.

This is a great motivation for a weird villain, a very old warrior with a strict code of ignorance in terms of moral dilemmas.

He's fighting a war that's been over for a century. He kills women and children because, as far as he knows, they come from a civilisation of ALWAYS NATURAL EVIL and as long as his view isn't contradicted he can keep doing what he's doing. He's made it a point of never learning how to read and when rumours came that peace might be declared he deafened himself. He wanders the land, slaughtering the descendants of his enemies.

A small cult of deus vault types have been attracted to his unwavering dedication to purging and have followed him on a holy pilgrimage. He doesn't lead them in any way, they live by his example and try to interpret what he would want.

In simplified D&D terms he would be lawful evil. He does what he does because it satisfies his sense of duty and spiritual superiority. He doesn't actually care about moral consequences or the meaning of codes, so long as they are technically upheld he can claim the ultimate high ground.

He is extremely powerful, with his cult in tow he is practically a force of nature. Many villains find it useful to trick him into attacking their enemies.

>shooting the bad guy
>edgy

yes, chances are i wont stray my course even if i do find out - the path is set, why make myself feel bad afterwards?

Why force yourself to be so stubborn? If your feelings are strong enough that your choices won't change, then you have no real need to feel bad

Look, this is how we do it. Greg casts Detect Evil, we hear what Greg's verdict is, and depending on the answer we may or may not take a chill pill and hear the bad guy out on what he has to say. I won't allow any living dad of mine to be a villain.

If I didn't know he was my dad, why would I care

I did this to a lich. I was drunk and my character was beyond pissed at what he had done to become a lich.

>Siring a welp then giving it over to the monastery

He could have been a protagonist or some shit.

> Pssht, nothing personal kid. I'm too cool to care about the plot of this adventure
> not edgy

>not wanting to sit through a monologue is Coldsteel-tier edginess

>Letting the BBEG cast a curse
They can't chant a spell if they're dead.

It may not be edgy, but it is stupid and rude.

Rude because your are shitting all over soemthing that the GM prepared for you for no reason.

Stupid because dissing genre conventions like the villainous monologue is a dumbfuck idea when those same genre conventions are the only reason most PCs are allowed to do anything at all. The same sort of PC who wheezes about 'realism' and 'its what my character would do' would throw an absolute bitchfit if the GM had their character ever suffer 'realistic' repercussions for half of their misdeeds.

If getting to play Han Solo is stupid and rude, then I guess I like being stupid and rude.

>Rude because your are shitting all over soemthing that the GM prepared for you for no reason.

Personally I love it when my players are proactive. What you're describing is guilt-tripping players to get them to just sort of agree to your plot railroad. That doesn't sound like a fun game to play in or to run.

>Stupid because dissing genre conventions like the villainous monologue is a dumbfuck idea

I mean, I guess? I don't really care, as a player or a GM. If I've set up my villain right then my players don't need to hear him wax poetic about how they're the true bad guys to get invested in him. There are plenty of times when a PC might have to sit and chat with the villain but most people wouldn't pass up a chance to take a shot at the guy who killed his parents/buddy/girlfriend.

>The same sort of PC who wheezes about 'realism' and 'its what my character would do' would throw an absolute bitchfit if the GM had their character ever suffer 'realistic' repercussions for half of their misdeeds

If that player tries something against the villain when it'd be smarter not to and then gets burnt for it, that's his issue and should be something he knew the risks for. He wants to stew that's his problem. But I won't fiat away his agency because I have some unspoken rule he has to play it my way or get killed.

sorry mate but you sound like an edgy 12 year old

This all links back to Neither way is right or wrong, it's all about what the group expects.

You seem to not give a fuck about genre conventions. And if that's what you and your group enjoy? Awesome.

But other groups do care about genre conventions, and if that's the setup for the game than someone recklessly ignoring them can and will ruin the experience.

This was mentioned in a thread about horror games the other day. It's really fucking hard to run one without making use of the genre conventions, because if you don't then people will often just turn around and leave or call the police when they see the dark, spooky place they're meant to go to or whatever.

>anyone who doesn't sit through my page-long villain speech is just an edgy kid

You know impatience with banality isn't a sign of immaturity, right?

You guys keep bringing up "genre conventions" a lot and I don't quite understand what you mean.

Yeah the villainous monologue is a genre convention. So are things like finding out the villain is your father, or having a final showdown with her. And, guess what, shooting the bad guy before he has a chance to kill you. Or have you never seen a Western?

What it sounds like to me is you build your plot around a laundry list of things you got from TVTropes, then expect everyone to play ball with this because good storytelling is apparently a math equation or cooking recipe. Two Parts Five-Man Band, one part Big Bad, add in some Genre Savvy and a Face-Heel Turn for flavor.

You'd do better off reading what people say rather than coming up with your own bizarre explanations.

Genre conventions, y'know, vary. It depends a lot on what genre you're trying to emulate.

For some genres? Sure, shooting the villain on sight makes perfect sense. In others, the stand off before the fight and an exchange of words is so baked into the genre that it's taken as standards.

Now, the occasional subversion? That can be interesting. A character who, despite having followed the line most of the time, breaks and shoots first in response to a particular event? That can be interesting.

However, a character in a setting where that kind of thing is taken as read, which the rest of the group are on board with, who just shoots first every fucking time is an asshole just making the experience worse for the other players.

Context is everything.

But a ethical dilemma can still happen if the DM is subtle enough.
Ignorance is bliss, but that doesn't mean the DM won't hint at what's going on in a way that you can't just stab away.

>who just shoots first every fucking time is an asshole just making the experience worse for the other players.

Well obviously I'm not talking about some guy who shoots his way out of every problem he comes across. The bridge guard asks a toll so the player stabs him? That's annoying, and the hammer will fall on that.

But if the big bad, the evil villain who was built up the whole campaign and who personally killed a player's family suddenly rounds the corner or is standing on the other side of a closed door? Why would that player not take a shot at him, other than they're in an environment where it's obviously suicidal? Why would a character just stand there and let him talk unless the villain makes it immediately clear it's in his best interest not to? I feel this is applicable to any game. There's a difference between not shooting because it'll get the cops called on you, and not shooting because you want to pay lip service to what ever half-baked monologue the GM begged the players to let him recite.

>Genre conventions, y'know, vary. It depends a lot on what genre you're trying to emulate.
See, when I see something like that I think you're talking about not playing a minigun-toting supersoldier or magical loli witch in a spy game. Taking a shot at Darth Vader is something which feels in place in just about any setting.

k.

>Or have you never seen a Western?

Which is a different genre. With different conventions.

You wouldn't expect the dude with a knife in a fantasy RPG to be that big a threat to you, and you would probably be kinda confused if he just sort of teleported around whenever you were not looking at him to jump out at you from new and interesting dark places. That's because in the fantasy genre, as a level 10 Artisan Weaver, a guy with a knife isn't supposed to be a threat to you unless you dress it up with poison or ninja training or something. But in a horror story/game, a guy with a knife is a serious fucking problem. If he stabs you, you WILL die.

The flip side is also true. You wouldn't expect to get to the introduction of the masked serial killer in a horror movie, only for the group of college kids to all instantly huddle up, grab weapons, and take turns beating him to death with sticks and not running away no matter how wounded they get or even if some of them die. And when the masked serial killer dies, you only take off his helmet so you can wear it yourself for the extra head protection. Because that's murderhobo logic, it doesn't belong in that story.

Shit like the villainous monologue is a thing because in many fantasy stories, the villain and the heroes meet very rarely. Because for most of the story, the villain is so dangerous that if they DID meet the heroes would get stomped because they haven't gathered the orbs or destroyed the ring or whatever. So the villain needs to be able to squeeze a lot of personality into a very small span of time. Pre-battle banter is the traditional means for this.
Remove the monologue, and the villain is just some wizard you went on a long and convoluted quest to kill because some old guy in a tavern doesn't like his political policies.

>Why would that player not take a shot at him

Because sometimes it's more fun not to. It's that simple. A bit of pre-fight banter, the good old standoff where words are exchanged... In the right context, those are awesome moments which really add a lot to the coming fight.

But, again, it depends a lot on context. The kind of game, the kind of setting, all of that.

Although I guess that's also a general rule. If you make a character who consistently acts against the setting and detracts from the game as a whole, you're an asshole.

>If you make a character who consistently acts against the setting and detracts from the game as a whole, you're an asshole.
But what if you have a DM that plays around with that idea?
That one arsehole can be done well if written well, like that thread talking about plopping a Dark Souls PC into a typical shonen harem. Writing is key to making any character good.

Then you wouldn't be detracting from the game as a whole, so you wouldn't meet the standards set forth for being an asshole.

Making a character who is deliberately incongrous for the sake of comedy can work, but you may notice that in those cases it is that same character who suffers. He is the one that doesn't fit in, he is the one constantly exasperated that the rest of the world doesn't make sense. His method of doing things only rarely works out in his favor. His life is a joke, and he is the butt of it.

The Dark Souls PC in the magical girl group worked specifically because if was funny that he never talked and just wanted to sword fight things, but the antics of his group meant he rarely got the chance to do so. His woe was our laughter.

Reverse the polarity on that, where that one character is bringing the rest of the group down, and it stops being funny. Its either a powerwank fantasy of one character being the only one cool and smart enough to solve problems, or a guy being a total buzzkill.

>a peaceful civil rights group is EEEEBIL
You people are absolute morons you know that?

Bottom of the bait barrel.

>Blacklivesmatter
>Peaceful

>shoot villain
>collapses laughing mad
>go right to the ultimate final super boss from his first form dying with no context, wipe party

>Shoot the villian
>It wasnt even the villian, just some random soldier telling you that he is in another castle
>Since you killed him you dont know in what castle he is now

The villain probably has a lot of hit points. Are you sure one shot is going to finish him off?

No, but it sends the message that you either do not care about the BBEG's bullshit, or have had enough of it.

Monologues are for chumps, fags, and 2edgy4you pieces of shit.

If anyone monologues near someone that might want to kill them, expect to be punched in the face. Period.

>The DM sighs when we shoot his villain pre-monologue for the 5th time

clearly the players do not want campy cartoon villains

If I'm not going to change my mind anyway, why bother to hear the bad guy out? If I've spent my whole life training to kill someone, I'm going to just kill him as quickly as possible. I'm not going to wait for him to say "Wait, I have a good reason for wh-"

Don't give that fucker an inch. Gut him first, worry about the rest later.

Aren't they a terrorist organization, like the Black Panthers?

Go away Soros or I'll turn on the gas

>villain not shooting at the PCs the first moment he sees them

How is that not the obviously right choice? It works the other way around, too. Just think of how many dead heroes and villains would've succeeded in their good/evil plans if they just got it over with instead of having a long-winded talk with the hero/villain? Numerous campaigns could be shortened or avoided altogether if people just remembered Tuco's words from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.

I mean, no, he doesn't. As with pretty much anything ever Veeky Forums related, it comes down to your specific group. I've had it both ways in my games. One of my players had a character who had been manipulated by the BBEG into killing his son's fiance, driving his son into hating him and ending with him having to kill his son in self defence. At the final confrontation, the villain tried to give his triumphant monologue and explain his actions, but the PC just attacked him in a blind fury and beat him to death. It was a great moment, the culmination of that PC's transition from hero into a broken shell of a man only out for revenge.

I've also had the exact opposite, where my BBEG delivers a dramatic monologue pre-fight, and the party retorts with your classic virtuous hero banter, and that's great too. It's a more traditional heroic journey, and there's a place for that.

tl;dr he's not being an edgy 12 year old for liking something you don't like. If anything it's you being immature for not considering any other points of view.

>Topical!

youtube.com/watch?v=qggxTtnKTMo

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

no but seriously gm how much xp did we get killing that guy
is there any loot

>attacking a chained young bronze dragon
>chained
>young
>Lawful good

why would you even think about this ?

>I shoot the villain before he can say anything
>he hits the floor like a graceless sack of shit
>a triggering mechanism rolls out of his hand
>party thinks I saved the day in the nick of time

>it's a dead man's switch