Villain is weak, not extremely intelligent, pathetic, unlikable, and prone to being mocked

Villains like that generally aren't very satisfying to fight. They're just frustrating and aggravating.

In the hands of a good GM, they can still make them an interesting addition to the game, but most people can't handle it and they just end up being tiresome and boring for the PCs, with most GMs learning not to even bother.

When in doubt use the archives

Sounds like a boring villain.

>Villains like that generally aren't very satisfying to fight.
Probably not, but then again not every group runs adventures where every antagonist is just another source of EXP for the murderhobo PCs.

You just said something that has nothing to do with what you quoted.

I meant 'fight' in a broader sense than just direct physical conflict.

That kind of villain is not, generally, fun opposition. They can be, in the hands of a very good GM, but they're generally not, was my point.

And I should note that this is specifically talking about the players, not the PCs. PCs will likely hate or be frustrated by every villain, but for the players antagonists should be interesting and enjoyable, especially recurring ones.

Not every poster runs Veeky Forums like it's a source of coherent discussion.

Before clarified, I assumed the context of "fight" meant the more literal sense, in that players wouldn't like to do combat with villains who are like those the OP described because they'd be too weak to be entertaining, or too obnoxious in their behavior to listen to.

Please try to find the context. You just said something that has nothing to contribute to the thread.

>Why don't we see more of these?

Because it takes too much work on the GM's part.

Also, thanks to the influence of Super Mario Bros. and the like, most current players have unconsciously think that "Final Boss" equates "Personally the Biggest, Baddest, & Most Powerful Boss".

There's a very old Chinese story concerning one of their best emperors talking with his best general. The emperor asks the general to rate his, the emperor's, military leadership. The conversation goes something like this:

General: You could lead, at best a division or so of troops very well and a corps well enough.
Emperor: What about you?
General: I can lead entire armies very well.
Emperor: If that is so, why do you who can lead armies work for me?
General: Because you are a leader of leaders.

The "Final Boss" - our constant use of that phrase should remind you of how much video games have effected TTRPGs for good or ill - doesn't need to be the best warrior, best wizard, best thief, etc. All the "Final Boss" needs to be is the BEST LEADER so the best warrior, wizard, thief, etc. work for him.

TlL;DR - Pull you head out of your video games. TTRPGs can, do, and should work differently.

...

...

...

Is it weird that as a kid I wanted to bone her so fuckin hard, or have her pretty much dominate me (as im sure she would)

find me someone who doesn't want that as a grown-up

Not him, but I've done this on several occasions, and it really is weird how a lot of groups really will get bitchy about it.

I had one short adventure, about 5-6 sessions, which was about some political intrigue and solving an assassination; The players were level 4 when it started, 5 and close to 6 when it ended, and the main bad guy of the thing was a level 3 aristocrat. Of course, he had in his pay a 9th level monk/assassin (I forget the exact charbuild and I'm too lazy to look it up) who kicked ass for him.

The final "Showdown" wasn't a direct fight but them trying to bring the information once they solved the case to the capital, and being hounded by this guy, who while he couldn't take them in a direct fight, 1 on 5, could hang around the edges, stalk them, and fire crossbows at range and then run away, aided by some magic items that let him go without food or sleep, and occasionally trying to maneuver local monsters into the party's path.

You would not BELIEVE the bitching when the game ended (with baddie aristo arrested on their word) and I showed them the char sheets.

>Why would this evil assassin not kill a weakling aristocrat? I mean, he easily could!
>Yeah, that's just stupid user, this adventure totally doesn't make sense, you should think these things through more.

They sound like murderhobos if that's the mindset they think everyone would have.

The funny thing was, they weren't, or at least not in the classic sense. I mean, they did an actual murder investigation with quasi-forensics and figuring out who stood to gain from the local duke sprouting a dagger in the chest in the night.

But they did seem to have this video game mentality that the Biggest Boss (especially among evil, which means psychopathic and selfish) people, needs to be the toughest one around. Or maybe it was just that the main fighting villain just didn't have a lot of ambition in the classic sense, and just wanted to be paid a lot of money and spend it on living luxuriously.

Thanks man!

Sooooo...

Pretty much, yeah.

...

Nicole Sullivan's voice lends itself exceptionally well to boner induction in cartoon characters.

>But they did seem to have this video game mentality that the Biggest Boss (especially among evil, which means psychopathic and selfish) people, needs to be the toughest one around.

Not sure that is a video game only thing. There are a lot of different power structures. Some of them would be expected to be lead by the most ruthless and individually powerful member. I think it just depends of how effective money/influence are relative to bitchslapping people to get your way.

In the case of something like a jailhouse gang, I would expect the leader to be at least as dangerous as the other members, if not more so. In the case of a noble with guards and hired assassins, I would not expect the noble to be the strongest combatant in the organization.

I do think that more evil the power structure are more likely it is to be lead by more combative leaders due to the self destructive and short sighted behavior. It is also going to depend why the leader is important to the organization. With the example of the noble, his status is inherent to his person and would be lost to the organization if a random goon killed or strong armed him out. With the jailhouse gang, being more dangerous is about the only merit between one goon and the next.

The new Samurai Jack series brought back Looney Tunes Aku and it is glorious.

Awesome taste, my friend.

See An infuriating enemy will lead to extreme actions by the PCs in ways you'll never conceive

The fact that he's his own shrink is goddamn hilarious

So many teenage erections.

Aku: Why won't he
Both: DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Because it isn't hard to defeat them.
>Hey guys why don't we kill king dickbag
>Cue popular revolution

because no bad ruler has ever stayed in power?

You don't go round killing royalty
Aristocrats have relatives and Shitty sneaky Prince John is Brother to The noble competent King Richard, who will hunt you down and kill you for murdering his family.
Conversely, sneaky bad guy may have a treaty with the evil empire to stop them taking over the country in exchange for gold or supplies. He's the lesser of 2 evils.

PTSD Jack is the best Jack.
I actually had feels with E2.
"only Nuts and Bolts"

Hitler could totally 1vs1 any of his generals

His power of pure HATE was too strong

in the end the only person strong enough to defeat Hitler, was Hitler

IIRC the first Far cry has you defeat a bunch of really tough enemies.
Final Boss is scientist guy with the weakest pistol in the game.

Kek

I don't comprehend why those barely there lips that could look like a mustache some times still looked hot

First of all, A final boss fight is not a video gamey thing anyway. Plenty of movies, tv series, cartoons, animes and books end in a climatic battle with the main villain.
Need I remind you that "BBEG" is not even a video game term?

>TTRPGs can, do, and should work differently.
>can
yes
>do
yes
>should
not really. They can work the same or they can not work the same, up to what the players and GM find fun.

Why was this movie so good?

Are there any apart from shego? I know she does Muriel in family guy but that's hardly appealing

>BBEG

No one said that until you did, fag.

So? I wasn't quoting anyone. I mentioned the term to illustrate that the idea of fighting the villain in the climax at the end isn't a video game thing.

No every villain needs to be powerful by themselves to be a threat. An evil king with the resources of a kingdom at his disposal can be a major threat even if he himself can't fight for shit. Sure, the PCs will kick his ass the moment they catch him unguarded, but that doesn't mean his armies can't lay waste the PCs' homeland, or that catching him unguarded will be easy. The'll probably have to travel miles through hostile territory to even reach his castle, then get past all the guards. You can have your epic bossfight against his evil knights or whatever, even if the king himself could easily be stabbed to death by a lv.1 fighter once all his soldiers and guards are dealt with.

Of course, this is assuming somethign other then 3.PF, where God-Wizard can just scry when the king is taking a shit, then teleport in the loo and stab him to death. Although in 3.PF-land any competent evil king with the resources of a kingdom at his disposal would ward his castle with anti-scrying and -teleportation spells precisely to avoid the inevitable teleporting wizard-assassins, and hire his own wizards to gank the PCs in their sleep.

>Need I remind you that "BBEG" is not even a video game term?

Need I remind where it where derived from?

buffy?
I might be wrong.

The guy is saying that a boss fight is a very common thing in video games, to the point of it being an expectation for most people who are more familiar with video games than they are with tabletop games. Quit being dumb.

I disagree. I'd say most action media in general are what gives the players the expectation of a climatic final fight.

The villain doesn't have to be a boss fight, he just needs to bring about an appropriate challenge.

It doesn't matter how cool he is, ttrpgs are chaotic games and unless the GM is very controlling most deaths will be messy and unceremonious.

>A guy whom everyone hates can't pull off a massive, world-ending conspiracy on his own.
The danger doesn't have to be world ending and the villain doesn't have to do it on his own. Some idea:
>(pic related) The old King was powerful and loved, his rightful successor however is a selfish idiot. He is disliked by the common people but his blood is very valuable so clever, villainous types latch on to him to help keep him in power. Despite his childish nature he does have a kind of low cunning and a surprising talent for cruelty, he is at least smart (and lazy) enough to keep these qualities to himself until the moment is right.

>An ambitious warlord. Well right now he is only a lieutenant for a greater warlord, but he has big dreams! He has been put in charge of a backwater territory (the PCs home turf) to raid and subjugate. He is disliked by superiors, peers and rivals. He's petty, arrogant and of middling ability. He hates himself for being only "okay" and tries to make up for it with viscous and dishonourable behaviour. Despite being a liar and coward he has a genuine fire inside him, a burning desire for greatness because of this he's developed a close circle of comrades who feed of his passion and will follow him to the brink. He will take them to the brink, he's not good enough to win, but if he has to loose he'll take everyone with him.

I say the problem is that so much power of a character is tied to level. Instead of measuring the progress in a profession /way of living, it gives near exponential power (with a factor): HP, feats/SPELLS and, in general, more options to influence the world.
If level and equipment are the primary scale for power, people will get confused if an apparently weak person is 'in power'.

To be fair to the players dnd used to actually have every lord king and leader big levels in their campaign setting

So that ends up being the expectation when you play dnd.

>A retarded demigod. The very lowest of the pantheon cast down to earth. His form is base and his tenants are ridiculous and inconstant. He has gathered the wretches of the world as his charges. They are burnt out on all manner of substances and wounds to the mind and in this state follow him as zealots. His high priest his a failed wagon maker going through a midlife crises, who constantly spouts edgy pop-philosophy. His miracles are chaotic and prone to backfiring. He is as generous with resurrection as he is incompetent. His death prone lieutenants grow more and more warped as time goes on.

I'm stealing this idea.

You need to recognize that a ttrpg isn't purely an "action media." While combat is often a focus, it's not the entirety of the game, and it's a bad habit from people who don't have a lot of experience with ttrpg but a lot with video games to think in narrow expectations like "the only way to deal with this monster is to fight it" all the way down to "there must be a specific way to defeat this specific monster."

A final showdown with the villain is a classic staple, but it can get a bit much if players act with that as a foregone conclusion and unwavering expectation.

Aku's not really an example because he is phenomenally powerful even if he's prone to making dumb and impulsive decisions and caring more about mocking his enemies than doing things efficiently. Hell, the reson he acts like that is probably because he's practically undefeatable so he can just treat everythign as a game and still be secure in the knowledge that he'll win. He's pretty much the player who turns on cheat codes and run around the stage goofing off since the enemies can't kill him no matter what he does.

Xykon the lich from OotS is kind of similar in that he's not particularly intelligent and is prone to do some goofy things, but is still a major threat due to being a powerful sorcerer.

>You need to recognize

Not really because I was talking about players in general, not me in particular

Mira Nova in buzz lightyear.

...

Literally a BBEG in a game I played. He was an autistic manchild who frequently threw temper tantrums too.

Taking him down was hell.

Takes lots of work DURING the campaign and makes for a super easy boss fight, unless the players are fighting him after he's already recovered the artifact/bound the demon to his will/absorbed the souls from the sacrifice/performed the ritual

I really don't agree with the notion that there has to be a boss fight at the end of the campaign. Surely making preparations, foiling your adversary's plans and storming the stronghold; possibly fighting through whatever guards are there to bring your enemy to justice is enough of a climax for most people?

Richard Nixon

This will only work if you have players who are invested in people's lives. Maybe they'll kill the villains eventually but they aren't murderers and don't act like murderhobos.

Have some smug.

How did this ever get past the censors?

Animaniacs proved pretty conclusively that those people are asleep at the wheel most of the time.

I'm going to need sauce on this.

This is why Hartman Hips exist. Sexiness that isn't going to be flagged as 'inappropriate'

Why did she follow him?

Listen here you little shit. Tricky Dicky was God's gift to America and the reason we have even cold relationships with China as opposed to 'shooty' relationships.

That said, it is merely coincidental that my best villain channeled him.

I swear to God we better uncover some old nazi documents that mention that Hitler would shatter massive oak desks when he was mad.

Be careful what you wish for.

>inb4 some Russian workers discover documents lost in the fall of the soviet union detailing how Hitler punched his way out of Berlin

> Old footage of the invasion is recovered.
> Hitler is seen on a rooftop in the classical back stance.
> A shell is launched at him.
> He grips it and spins 180 degrees and it just goes flying behind him.

Literally did nothing wrong.

Oh, I think he was great. But he wasn't particularly good-looking or charismatic, and was almost universally disliked, but he still got elected and pulled off some impressive stuff.

The silent majority loved him, and he proved to be the first of only three modern presidents that could tap into that, but he had the Charisma of a rock. Not even a particularly nice rock.

My great uncle actually was one of the people that went with him to China, he's the rich one of the family, and was a great guy.

>almost universally disliked
>The silent majority loved him
It wasn't even a question about the silent majority. Nixon was, just like JFK, a very moderate centrist who was loved by people from both sides.

I thought most of King John's power came from the fact that he controlled the guard and had all the money, not that he was actually competent in any sense.

I feel like you would see this more in a political-themed campaign, which is kind of a shame because you won't get the sort of daring-do of the Robin Hood story.

I don't think there's anyone alive who wouldn't want that

If you're going by the historical King John, he was fairly capable as a leader, in terms of managing battle and the realm, but undermined by being something of a shitty person.

Also, no king at the time had all the money or all the army, or even a lion's share of either, which is why discontent barons managed to force the Magna Carta at all.

>Is this a joke? It's because the PCs are going to kill him. If all his good qualities are off-screen, he's not going to make for a good boss-fight.

That's literally video game logic though.

I don't get it, what got past the censors?

I want to do exactly that, but I honestly am not a good enough gm.

so essentially assuming that evil organizations work like schoolyard bullies?

If he's not likable, strong, or intelligent, where does he get the power to do evil from?
Crafty, ruthless, and vicious are fine villainous traits but on a weakling they just make for a nuisance.
He's not physically strong enough to intimidate people or hurt them, he's not intelligent enough to trick them or outsmart them, and he's not likable enough to charm them. How the fuck does he get anything done? Why would he have loyal minions willing to die for him?
Money? Because if he's weak and not smart, there's no chance he's keeping that money.
You don't see villains like that because there aren't any villains like that. If they're not smart, strong, and/or charismatic, they're just assholes who nobody likes.

>King John
>aka John Lackland
>aka John Softsword
>lost half of the crowns holdings in France
>a competent military leader
Was he really?

Birthright goes a long way. As long as you are smart enough not to burn down your own house, a person born into great wealth can typically live off of it with minimal effort or skill, and their family name is often more valuable than the person themselves.

>A hired thug choosing not to kill the guy who keeps giving him money? Shocker.

No it isnt

Absolutely nothing. user is just extremely insecure about anything that his childlike mind interprets as the least bit sexual.

>is enough of a climax for most people?
Not if you are playing dnd

>an absolute fuckslut in a disney cartoon for little kids

That girl is concentrated pornography stuffed inside a package bursting at the seams.