Have Villain talk

>How do I keep pesky heroes from doing this?
Use clones / imposters / simulacrums - teach them the monologue. Have them make the speech, even if they are killed two words in.
Refuse direct confrontation with heroes until I have confirmed they heard it out in full.

>lol trying to cooperate in creating a good story in a game about telling stories, what fags.
As much as it is okay for the players to decide they are going to do whatever they want, your attitude is insufferably retarded.

I like this idea with the inevitable 3rd clone who demands that they cease and listen for one damn second.

>Entirely sensible cou-
I attack!

>You have nobody to blame for-
I attack!

>
>>player does something that is perfectly reasonable I-
I attack!

>
>It's not that I don't care for-
I attack!

> (OP)
>Makes sense. This-
I attack!

>This is why you monologue-
I attack!

>villian stats monologuing

i punch the dm in the gut for being a shitty story teller

>tfw you were the monologuing villain all along

Perfectly sensible, but is there any media in which the villain starts monologueing and then attacks the hero mid sentence? Honestly it's what I would do if suddenly confronted by the heroes out of my element.
>"Ahah, you think you have me cornered. Little do you know it's all part of my master plan. Go ahead, fight me if you wish, but POCKET SAND"

>Villain start monologuing, attack the PCs mid-sentence and continue monologuing while beating them

>the paladin gives his speech about truth and justice at the same time as the villain's monologue with neither paying the slightest bit of attention to each other

>Director yells "CUT" and waddles out from behind the scenes, starts chewing the PCs out for botching their cue
>Villain starts having a hissy fit over having to work with amateurs

Where is the line between a monologue and the GM simply portraying a villainous NPC as per their duties? All of you go straight to assuming monologues.

Remind them of all the times they used "talking is a free action" to make long discussions in the middle of fights. I guarantee anyone who attacks the villian while they're talking has done this extensively.

>something something za warudo

"Wow, a member of the opposition is talking. What my sensible character, who do not want to die at all, carrying a buttload of weapons will do? I know, I will see what this guy wants. Yeah, I have absolutely no motivation or inclination to talk to this guy (and a passing meta-knowledge that I have no dialogue-related skills) whatsoever, but, he's chatty, I'll chat. What is the worst thing that could happen? This makes perfect sense in this situation."

If the technology (or magic) supports it, my plan would be to have the villain rant over the intercom as the players approach the inner sanctum rather than wait for them to get there before talking. Seems more practical to me.

That's an instant kill.

>Senator Armstrong

Would you accept a GM who has all villains shoot your PCs mid-quip?

>playing your character in a game about playing characters is a bad thing
the gm should know your character and if the whole group accepted your concept, there's nothing wrong with charging the villain during his speech. If the gm saw this as important he should have either given him an ingame reason to let him talk or talk to the player beforehand. Don't blame your players for bad roleplaying when you're shit at communicating with your friends.
oh wait, I forgot I'm on Veeky Forums. Nevermind.

Only have villains talk in combat. PCs cannot attack your villains if it isn't their turn.

this. an eye for an eye learns most people.

>all the PCs start giving their own monologues all at the same time, nobody can hear each other, they're all talking about truth, justice and the american way but nobody understands jack shit, they all slowly stop talking at seperate times and curtail off with "and that's why we'll stop you".

>confusion and cringe all around

I say *don't* remind them. Just attack them before they can string a dozen words together. Fair's fair.

yes. i'll talk using free-actions in combat instead.

Usually they don't get to talk at all. Enemies are enemies not tinderdates.

>DM uses one of the most well known and best established tropes in the entire history of literature
>HURR DURR SHITTY STORY REEEEE!

> GM has NPCs talk in combat on their turn
Agreed?

Your PC the enemy to the villain. You respect the GM treating your PCs in kind then?

ofc. just don't expect me to do nothing and listen to some evil fucker drone on about his intentions. i wanna fight him while he does that. he doesn't have to shut up but i'd rather not stand there like a lemon and let him.

OP can't handle the macho gamer.

> The villian catches your sword in his bare hand and looks at it, aghast.
> "EXCUSE me" he says, punctuated by the loud *crack* of your arm being broken nonchalantly. "I was TALKING. People these days..."

If the villian didnt bother to disarm you before monologing, its because he doesnt consider you a threat. Once you attack him, you force a situation where somebody involved is proven to be an idiot.

It need not be the villian.

Then I start yelling CHOO CHOO noises at the DM while he talks.

>tfw yo-
Roll for anal circumference

Then I start yelling CHOO CHOO noises at you while I fuck your dad.

So your strategy is railroading the players. Woooow.

Then I start yelling CHOO CHOO noises at you while I fuck you fucking my dad.

you're the worst kind of gm

Any that's why people stopped inviting you to game night.

This is a very roundabout way to announce that you're both faggots.

> the villain HAS to be weaker than me otherwise I cry foul

You must be a lot of fun to game with.

>"I attack him!"
>the party goes for an all out attack
>it_s_a_trap.jpg
>the villain's body disappears leaving behind a bomb
>boom
>the whole party is on death saving throws
>the villain appears from a blind spot
>"I didn't expect the heroes to be so rude, but now that you can't do anything else, I'll finish my speech"

>You miss
>You miss
>You miss
>You miss
>You miss
>You rolled a NAT 1! Auto-miss and your weapon flies from your hand.
Now, where was I?

>teleport behind you
>start fucking you as you fuck your dad
Pssh...nothing personal....kid

>PC's now barely speak and only keep sentences to 1-3 words maximum.
>Players are entirely focused on the game and will avoid all attempts at roleplaying.
>Game becomes a slog where the players are on their phones until you say "roll for initiative."
Great plan.

Is it bad that I do that? I usually wait until the end of the conversation, just before they take off. I know I can't beat them there I just want to piss them off

>t. fag DM

the villain doesn't have to be weaker than you, he can be stronger than you, but the DM can be less of an insufferable faggot. here's a better version of that same scenario.

>You attack the villain mid-sentence
>Your sword cuts deep into his shoulder, eliciting a snarl of pain from the cur
>He forces himself to stand, then thrusts a palm out as a blast of explosive force knocks you back.
>You feel the breath knocked out of your lungs as your back hits the wall, your body leaving an imprint in cracks as you peel off the wall
>Continue monologuing while dipshit gets his breath back.

The party is attacking your villain because you're making your villain someone they want to attack. Let them do some damage to him, then prove his superiority, that is what your players would compromise on. Your goal is to make your players feel powerful.

Bad players deserve bad games.

Bad games breed bad players.

Talking is a free action unless he's delivering an outright speech.

>Your goal is to make your players feel powerful.
No. No it's not. Your goal is to make a engaging and fun experience for your players, not make a fucking power fantasy.

Power fantasies are fun.

> That Guy is a result of bad games
No.

There are other forms of fun.
If your players like power fantasies, sure. Make it a thing. But some people want a completely different experience.

Why not? The PCs already don't let the GM talk.

Not one reply yet because they cannot distinguish between the two.

>The party is attacking your villain because you're making your villain someone they want to attack. Let them do some damage to him, then prove his superiority, that is what your players would compromise on

That doesn't work, because that's just an exchange of blows functionally indistinguishable from actual combat rounds. The situation you describe doesn't result in any chance of the monologue continuing, its just combat now. The player got what they think they wanted and the GM didn't. That's not a compromise.

If you want to impress upon players that this isn't a combat situation, you can't use combat rules or structure. Otherwise they will assume it is combat and act accordingly.

Like a "you should be running away from this threat" situation, any indication that you give that this is an enemy they should expect to beat by direct force is counterproductive, and worse than that its a lie that if the player believes can get their PC killed. In that situation, its only the players fault if the situation was obvious and they failed to act accordingly. Otherwise its the GM that failed.

>Your goal is to make a engaging and fun experience for your players
Exactly. And if your player wants to attack the villain mid-sentence, you shouldn't penalize him just because that's not what you wanted to happen.

Yes. Every person who has been THAT GUY was someone who either wasn't taught proper tabletop etiquette from a GM who actually put his food down or developed bad habits in response to dealing with a shitty GM.

Then some of them become shitty GM's, who produce shitty games, which will produce more bad players.

>villainous NPC as per their duties
talking to the party is a villain's duty? listening to the villain is the party's duty?

Because then it just becomes nothing but nerds sitting around at a table until someone rolls dice for 4-6 hours, which isn't enjoyable to anyone.

> If the player decides that he wants to parry the indiana-jones-style giant rolling boulder with his dagger and bring it to a dead stop, how DARE you tell him he can't do that! Thats just penalizing the player for not doing what you wanted.

Not all player actions are equally likely to result in their benefit. They can't. Otherwise you have no structure or challenge, just a GM taking a few hours a week to prop up their player's ego.

While I agree, you must consider the fact the villain might be lowering their guard due to belief in their own power. Depending on the situation attacking them mid-sentence might just be a Deathwish.
A Smart player would instead try to stealthily set up something much more powerful then a simple sword strike.

In threads like this, it is especially important to remember that a significant portion of people who spend time on Veeky Forums don't actually play games and have not done so in years, at least in part by their completely inability to hold a group together. So a lot of the "advice" you get from Veeky Forums is the equivalent of getting advice from Batman on sidekick safety.

In all honesty this is how real people would react against a villain.

Only in movies would heroes let a world threathening villain start a long monologue instead of trying to strike him down ASAP.

Playing Non-Player Characters (NPCs) is one of the GM's duties. Playing as in Role Playing; immersing one's self as a character. This often involves talking to get characterization across. Villains are NPCs.

This. The player is making an assumption that the BBEG is vulnerable and has left himself open to attack.

Why does that assumption have to be true?

We did something similar once
>Escaping from evil army
>We go into the harbor and pick a boat
>Suddenly antagonist appears in the dock
>Starts his villanous speech
>Literally 10 minutes
>GM "What do you do?"
>Us "Wave our hands saying goodbye as we set sails a while ago"
Of course he didn't let us do and humiliated us in an encounter, but we laughed so hard he got pretty angry

From then on we keep metagaming that way everytime he railroaded us

Fantasy is inherently wish-fulfilling though. If you're not willing to let them stop a boulder with a dagger once in a while (assuming the numbers back them up) then what's the point of playing a fantasy system?

If you don't want this logical endpoint then let the GM get a word in edgewise. They're not trying to fuck you over. They're just talking to get into character and help immerse the players in a fictional world. Talking is not monologuing.

Real world people don't go blindly charging into an enemy and start swinging, because real world people fucking DIE if you stab them with a knife. It is always, ALWAYS better to avoid a fight than to win one, and as long as the villain is still talking there is a chance that there is a way out of this situation that dosn't involve you risking getting disemboweled.

Stop being retarded. A player has reason to believe that attacking the villain mid-monologue is beneficial, because there's a good chance the villain will be caught off guard. Responding to that with "the villain effortlessly parries your attack, breaking your arm in the process" is just railroading. I'm not saying the player's action should be super effective and he beats the villain with equal effortlessness, just that that you shouldn't shut down his action completely just because you want to give your little speech and the player wants to exploit that.

>assuming the numbers back them up
See that's the thing.
In such a scenario, unless you're playing a high power campaign or that dagger is a magical artifact. You won't have the numbers backing you up.
There are even bigger numbers to deal with when dealing with a villain, especially if they're designed to challenge the players.

I think a lot of these responses may be due to a DM not setting up for the players how powerful their villain is without directly telling them. For instance, which villain are you more likely to attack?

>A sorcerer dressed in black robes menacingly staring at the party

Or

>A wicked necromancer, shadows flowing off of his robes, waves of power radiating like a pressure off of his being, you feel your willpower sapped by his very presence, a chill of supernatural fear sends a spike of adrenaline through your system. He opens his mouth to speak and in this moment you feel you are but gnats beneath his gaze.

I feel like a good portion of villains attacked prematurely just aren't intimidating the players enough. Obviously it's somewhat cunty of the players to attack mid-monologue but you have to consider the image you're putting out that makes them feel like they COULD attack the villain.

>If you don't want this logical endpoint then let the GM get a word in edgewise.
I wouldn't want to play with a GM who forces this type of ultimatum just because we decided to shoot at the Big Bad while he was (seemingly) vulnerable. Out of all possible outcomes, you choose the one that makes you look like a salty faggot with no imagination.
>Talking is not monologuing.
It is when they're the only ones speaking and they do so for over 1 minute.

Thats a weakass argument and you know it.

Real life people have guns and bullets kill people just as easily as a stab wound does.

perhaps, but thats not the question here.

In fact, if they are in position to sneak upon the villain then he wont make a speech either.

And if if they took all précautions neccessary they have no reason to let him monologing

In short, Villain monologue is usually a bad thing to do in a game, unless there is a good reason to let him speak. Even then they can kill him and cast some speak with the dead spell or Something.

If there's a combat players are going to attack or defend themselves from that villain anyway, why is midspeech different? is he more powerful when he talks?

Underrated post.

mon·o·logue

ˈmänəlˌôɡ,ˈmänəlˌäɡ/

noun

a long speech by one actor in a play or movie, or as part of a theatrical or broadcast program.

synonyms:soliloquy,speech,address,lecture,sermon,homily;

formaloration

"he quickly launches into another manic monologue"

a long and typically tedious speech by one person during a conversation.

"Fred carried on with his monologue as if I hadn't spoken"

talk

tôk/

verb

1.

speak in order to give information or express ideas or feelings; converse or communicate by spoken words.

"the two men talked"

synonyms:speak,chat,chatter,gossip,prattle,babble,rattle on,blather;More

noun

1.
conversation; discussion.

"there was a slight but noticeable lull in the talk"

synonyms:chatter,gossip,prattle,jabbering,babbling,gabbling;More

Is it equally railroading if the villain is a high level wizard who was secretly inside a forcecage the whole time for his protection, and by attacking him you trigger his contingency slapping you with a giant debuff? Or are only casters allowed to be prepared for attacks?

I think the issue with descriptions like that is that you are forcing your players to think something.
I do agree though, if the Villain hasn't been set-up as what is pretty much a living force of nature then they're probably gonna try to be cheeky.

now you're moving the goalposts

How is it weak? Look at most fantasy heroes and you'll find figures that are larger than life, capable of doing much more than normal men, who bag the love interest, and generally go on to become a major figure within the world that they live in.

It's wish-fulfillment of the highest caliber, even if the author is skilled enough to make it so the hero's accolades are deserved.

speak

spēk/

verb

1.

say something in order to convey information, an opinion, or a feeling.

"in his agitation he was unable to speak"

synonyms:talk,say anything/something;More

2.

talk to in order to reprove or advise.

"she tried to speak to Seth about his drinking"

synonyms:reprimand,rebuke,admonish,chastise,chide,upbraid,reprove,reproach,scold,remonstrate with,take to task;More

You sly dog you caught me monologuing!

If you don't punish the players in any permanent way for it, whats wrong with establishing that the villain is much stronger than them BY letting them being cheeky and seeing the results firsthand? As long as it doesnt actually result in any character death or anything, it seems like a perfectly reasonable way to impart the lesson in a way that they will remember AND which will likely leave at least one of them with a grudge they want to settle in the future. Making your players want to defeat the bad guy, instead of just sort of feeling obligated to because they might as well, is a good thing.

>A wicked necromancer, shadows flowing off of his robes, waves of
I attack him

>captcha: welcome ball games

And if they're not?