Shit bad DMs do

>Anyone prepped to make a speech has readied an action to attack at the first sign of hostility
>You say "I attack him" but as soon as you move to strike his blade is already thrust your way
>take [shitton] damage

Long speeches are not a free action. Short orders are

Already talked to him about it. My DM is in a sunk cost fallacy right now. I really want to DM, but he already made all the maps and stuff for the adventure and he doesn't want his hours invested go to waste. So we have to, at the very least, play about 8 more hours.

You see? That's a better solution than "no, your character is not supposed do that"

you could bail.

how?

deception, fake your own death

That's why you have the villain monologue on TV.

>The rules dictate that speech is a free action

But what if I'm playing a game that makes sense

You aren't the DM so it's not for you to decide.

Then you're lying to us

said rules usually have a limit such as "a sentence or 2", or oddly enough the exactly 16 words my system of choice uses.

But my GM gives us max 3 seconds of dialogue in a combat turn.

>The gamemaster should be careful to control excessive, unrealistic conversations within the span of a single action during a 3-second Combat Turn.

Attack him how?
Over the radio speaker he's speaking through?

>online campaign, so the whole thing is whispered
There is no need for this. Shit GM.

Of course, you sound like you play by text, making all of you shit.

I need to dig up that comic page where a character delivers a huge wall of text as he's leaping towards another character.

>Anyone prepped to make a speech has readied an action to attack at the first sign of hostility

Not a bad way to solve it from a rules perspective, but I don't accept that a readied action is invisible. If you've readied an action to strike, you should already be in a stance and have your hand on your blade.

>Of course, you sound like you play by text
Ya think so?

As a forever GM, I've had players do that, and I was always ok with it.

Let your player act like they want, especially if a) They logically can do so, and b) It makes for a fun scene.

Any RPG is made to be enjoyed, not to allow the GM to write his novel. If as a GM, you can't allow your players to act within the bounds of their characters possibilities, then why are you even GM'ing ?

>me: I do that
>DM: NO
I think that sums up most of the bad DM practices. If the player is doing something extremely retarded (we all know it happens a lot), let him do the action, but punish it severely. Don't just fucking tell OOC "no, you can't do that" while there's no real reason why he can't.

What if his actions fucks not only him but the whole group over, who didn't do anything wrong?

Group game, group consequences.

Group can also kill the fucker if he keeps putting them into danger over and over.

The group I play with does a lot of 40K RPGs, and there's one guy who repeatedly does retarded shit that could easily lead to a TPK. Instead of letting him fuck things up, his character usually ends up murdered by the party. Happens in their Eclipse Phase campaigns too. This guy always does some dumb shit and ends up dying from it. Every time. And if they let him get away with it, the GM would extend the effects of his actions to the rest of the party, assuming it logically makes sense to do so.

>DM makes time to create a villain with motives and a story around him. Even wrote him a large monolouge tying everything together.
>you just want to murder hobo everything probably ruining the experiance foreveryone involved like an autist
>come to Veeky Forums expecting everyone to villify the DM who wouldnt allow you to be a murderhobo for the sake of story
Pic related

>villain's motives are only revealed in a monologue

that's not exactly a good approach

Kill him, let the group escape. It all depends on your inventiveness as a GM and whether or not you can come up with an elegant and logical way out.
Although, if he endangers the entire group, I'd expect the other players to restrain him before he can pull it off.

no, OP is right about the bad DM part. A good DM makes the villain a wizard with hold person mass so that the speech can go on uninterupted.

Wanna know something the absolute worst players do? The kind of players I would never allow in my games?
Use that Pepe punch picture

Nobody cares about motives of your shitty self-insert, Steve.

Yeah, is right. Just because it's possible in the game world doesn't mean you can do it at my table.

>Fucking over the group or a thing the group loves, assuming you have good motives
Will be subjected to popular vote (with a stalemate meaning no). I expect my players to be able to tell "exciting" from "frustrating".
>Sadistic/fucked up shit within reason (IC roleplay, torture for info...) and unexpected silliness
Are both allowed only if they fit the previously agreed upon tone of the game, or if absolutely everyone is okay with changing the tone.
>PVP
Allowed if it doesn't fall into "fucking over the group" and both players consent.
>Lolrandumb or edgy shit
Only in special sessions (see point 2) or you can fuck right off.
>ERP
No.

If individual fun goes against group fun/comfort (GM's included), group fun wins.

Why not space out the villains monologue between attacks?

> Two of the party members worked as cobblers, one a master, one an apprentice
> Very powerful mob boss comes in and requests shoes
> Specifically from the master who doesn't usually meet the customers directly
> Apprentice doesn't think it'd be too big a deal to call him up to meet the mob boss
> Master comes up
> Mob boss greets him and explains he'd like some shoes
> Master has never really gotten mad before
> Suddenly goes nuclear at the mob boss, ripping in to him for almost 2 minutes
> Mob boss apologizes and asks him to reconsider
> "GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY STORE. NO SPECIAL TREATMENT"
> Spits at mob boss
> Me and Apprentice are pic related
> Mob boss leaves
>"I wasn't paying attention, was that guy important?"
> Nobody can stop laughing to explain to him what just happened.

The store was burnt down and the campaign essentially derailed into an anti-mob vengeance story from that point forward

My group has never waiting for any sort of monolog. Generally, if we're listening to some extended monolog, we're doing it when the baddy has already been defeated, or there's a lul in the fight.

See bad guy, kill bad guy. You should have already tried to find out what you can about him before you even are in contact with him, so that you have every advantage you can against him. This is just how my group has always operated.

Sometimes we even get an OOC after action report on the BBEG. I specifically remember one case in which we found out that the BBEG was basically a tragic hero in a way, but that was after we had already finished the campaign. Our group sees this as normal, and it would have to be some really crazy circumstances for us to surrender the initiative just to hear the BBEG out.

Sometimes not finishing the speech is more powerful.

I fully intend to rip off this scene in a campaign eventually.
youtu.be/aLkQfmUEyvk?t=119

>allow OP to play

Fuck your "I kill the bad guy during his monologue" meme. It's not clever. You're not smart for thinking of it.

>Killing the BBEG before he could make a joke
>Being That Guy

This Amon is better than the official one, and his motivation makes much more sense too.

Perhaps you should fuck off back to Skyrim then, Kevin.

>villain in the middle of his "epic" monologue
>me: I attack him
>his brains gets blown out with a gun
>villain's ghost shows up
>villain's ghost continues monologue

>villain takes a moment in his dialog to hit a player character with a maximized disintegrate

At least when I'm playing Skyrim I'm having fun, Steve. When I'm playing your campaigns, all I ever do is roll my eyes from all this "subtle" political commentary you're doing.
No, you're not making it any subtler by shoving all your views into the villain, if the villain is portayed as always right. You're not helping by making the good guys obnoxious caricatures either.

>Furry comic

I think part of the issue is when the player interrupts the gm it can ruin the narrative/effect the dm was trying to convey. I set up a mini boss battle the other day and it had an effective 30 second cut scene at the beginning.
Mad wizard with a huge wagon is warning my PC's not to wake the beast. As he's ranting at them a dragon bursts out of the wagon, kills him then confronts the PC's who were basically flying around to try and get the drop on the boss.

They all waited until the cut scene was over and most of them said they enjoyed the fight which was basically dragon ball z vs a dragon

This when I'd say that I am always readying an action to attack anyone that takes a hostile action against me

Well fuck your 'bad guy monologues in a cutscene' meme too.

I'm not a hero, i'm a murderhobo.
I don't listen to speeches, i murder.
It's right there in the title, murderhobo.

>Not having your villain begin his monologue from a balcony with some kind of magic ward over it
>Not having him send some minions at them to distract them so they dont have time to work out how to disable it
That way if they end up interrupting his monologue they earned it.

Shut the fuck up Charles. Kick me out of the table if you want I dant care

>DMFA

That comic's still going? I don't hear much about it, I always thought a comic going as log as it had would be a bit more popular.

>Uses combat rounds and mechanics to do chase scenes

FUCK

well it's more or less to be expected that your DM treats you like the cunt you are then

stupid frogposter

What are you supposed to do in this situation

I cast Silence on ourselves so we can't hear him.

>makes every encounter somewhere between 'easy' and 'you don't even have to bother'
>never kills off a PC in combat, only PC deaths are when someone does something really stupid
>gives out magic items with useless fluff attached (yeah, we get that you like writing gay fanfics on your spare time, but that doesn't mean that you should call a +2 flaming shortsword 'The Hillblade' and explain that it was the lost 'ancestral sword' of an ancient gnomish dynasty, nobody cares)
>gets annoyed when the players want to kill shit instead of listening to his shitty OCs ramble about the derivative and fanfic-tier world that he's built
>designs dungeons to be realistic rather than fun to fight in
>wants the PCs to develop attachments or grudges with his one-dimensional and boring NPCs
>creates a villain and tries to give the PCs 'personal motivation' to fight it when the only reason we're killing it in the first place is to get the experience and loot/rewards
>wants to write a deep and engaging story, full of shades of grey and interesting details, forgetting that nobody cares about that shit and that he's a terrible writer

D&D is for killing monsters, getting loot, and leveling up. Go and write a book if you want to tell a story where characters die exactly when/if you want them to die while 'telling a meaningful story with interesting characters and an expansive world'.
Oh, wait! You're terrible at writing, so you'd never be published! Even if you wrote a web-novel or self-published it, it'd go ignored!

So you take advantage of tabletop gamers who can't go anywhere else to tell your shitty stories with your dull OCs. Even though they don't want to deal with any of that shit, and just want to get some loot and kill some monsters.

Oh, and if I wanted to see a good story and an interesting world, I'd play an RPG video game or read a fucking book.

Not play your interactive fanfic.

If you wanted a game that made sense then why the fuck are you playing D&D? If you can accept shit like armor increasing your dodge chance or being able to survive falling at terminal velocity onto a stone floor, you should be able to accept that talking is a free action.

Why would they even invite retard-kun over to play if he's consistently making stupid decisions that can get the rest of the party killed? It's pretty shit GMing to allow one player to disrupt so much of the game just because you're too much of a bitch to put your foot down.

>Fighting woman who controls people's minds with her voice
>Really tough fight
>She goes down and starts monologue
>"WHAT?" i interupt
>DM is confused
>Remind him that I deafened myself before this fight so I couldn't be mind controlled
> DM laughs his ass off and just stops reciting it
Ruining a monologue is only fun when it's unintentional in my opinion

Because he'll be great for like 80% of a campaign and then just go full-retard, at which point he is murderized. Also, he's the group buttmonkey so we make up for his deficiencies in life by constantly reminding him what a shitter he is. It balances out, in a way. He frustrates us and we relieve our frustrations and he takes it like a little bitch.

>Deafening yourself on purpose to gain an advantage
That's the kind problem solving I love to see in players

not as bad as frogposting

Being great 80% of the time doesn't make up for the fact that he's liable to self-destruct and take the rest of the party with him on a whim. If he's always trying to destroy the party over and over and over again, either talk to him or kick him out.

It's bad enough worrying about the enemy in front of you without having to worry about someone shooting you in the back as well.

That's hilarious.

I can't tell if you are being ironic or baiting.

>tfw I do most of my villains "shonen" style where they divulge tidbits about their actions/motivations throughout a battle, so that this kinda stuff won't happen and so that my players don't have to sit through 5 minutes of me monologuing in character, just enough that once they've whittled him down they're invested enough to actually WANT to hear his final words (which is always meant to ADVANCE THE PLOT) and not just mercilessly deliver a coup de grace
Like honestly, as GM's it's our jobs to make the game world as interesting as possible. If a player that isn't necessarily That Guy does something like that, it's probably because you're boring them to death when all they wanna do is fuck shit up.
S'why most of my encounters are just for PC's to fuck shit up, so that when I want to shift the tone and be more story oriented, they'll be more appreciative and willing to go along with whatever it is I might have cooked up: because they know that whatever it is, they'll *HAVE FUN.* really can't stress that enough.

Nah here's the thing, he doesn't actively try to destroy the party. That's the fucked up thing. He's just prone to extreme fits of stupidity, selfishness, and insecurity. The problem is that if the party can't disassociate with him they have to do something about it. Or he'll do something REALLY dumb that generates direct and deadly conflict with another player (which can be common in 40K games mind you). Trust me, it's not really all that annoying, just hilarious, and it adds to his nature as the group buttmonkey.

>DM: The NPC was secretly a badass and had you in checkmate the whole time.
>Player: Wait, why don't I get to roll perception or insight to find it out beforehand? That's what the skills are there for.
>DM: The story takes precedence over you, sorry user.

I don't even condone
>muh player agency
fags, but this things was just shitty on the DMs part.

>you sound like you play by text, making all of you shit.
Damnit Jim, I'm a roleplayer, not an actor.

More like rollplayer

*teleports behind you*
nothing personal.. kid.

Run your own fucking game then, snowflake

Two things.
>designs dungeons to be realistic rather than fun to fight in
Only thing I sincerely agree with.

And what the hell is a web novel?

Play.

Something like Worm, even though Worm is much longer than a typical novel.

That's gay as fuck

I found skill challenges work pretty well.

>actually having a villain monologue
>not having a wordless, unstoppable force of nature that doesn't give anyone a chance to rest
Good luck murderhoboing against a sapient hurricane.

They post frogs on Veeky Forums.

Minmax looks like he has superhero proportions going on.

Man it's been a long time since I read this shit. Is the author still an emotional wreck who thinks his conscious is Darth Vader?

The art looks slightly better in my opinion since he hired someone else to do the coloring but overall I think that he's in a better place.

Ad lib.

EVERYTHING.

It starts to get suspicious when the DM has to stare up at the ceiling and think for a minute every time you ask for anything that isn't a general, broad description. An example of things that actually happened.

DM: "So, after crossing the forest you arrive at a town"
Player: "Cool, what is it called?"
"... Umm... uh, Smithsville"
"What is it like"
"... it is a small town"
"Okay... I mean, how do the buildings look, is there any interesting place"
"They are... made of wood. There's a wall of stone too. And a tavern"
"Right, we go in"
"There's music, some people drinking, the innkeeper asks what you want"
*in character PC* "How goes there! Hope you do not mind a few weary travellers seeking to rest for a while and get something good to drink. Wine would be fine, and do tell me, have you heard anything interesting tales recently?"
"He says he didn't hear anything, and gives you wine. You drink, what do you do next"

You get the idea. It was terrible

Holy shit, dude needs to go read some books or something. Study history? Fucking something. Sounds like he just doesn't have a good mental library of content to improv from

I have suffered from this as well, it sucks so bad

>He doesn't work with the players to craft a shared story

wew

>Giving your BBEG more depth than "Muahahaha, I'm a very bad guy!"
What a fucking pleb

You are the pleb here, user.

It was all according to keikaku. He knew you were going to attack mid-speech and had already planned the sequence of motions that would both launch the attack and bring him into a combat stance.

Alternatively, he's not a particularly intelligent villain and just eats the attack and gets mad at you for cutting off his speech, his anger adding to the ferocity of his strikes for the rest of the battle.

>The joke
.
.
.
.
.
>Your head

I need to clean my face after talking to you, pleb.

I have the opposite problem, as a DM. My players are both desperate to hear the motives of my villains and actively self-destructive when doing so, probably because I actually avoid monologuing characters (they tend to find out villain plans from other NPCs, textual evidence, servants, outer entities, literally anyone except the villain themself). Whenever I capitulate and decide it might be IC for the villain to explain himself, the players either get convinced by his reasoning and switch sides, or get convinced by his reasoning but still fight them because they just dislike the guy personally.