PDA

View Full Version : Serious Question for veteran RPers and DMs



Jan Mattys
2010-11-15, 10:46 AM
Hi playgrounders. I come to you today for wisdom and advice.

Who I am:
I belong to a long time group of roleplayers who have played PnP together for quite a long time now. We have been through very different systems (ranging from D&D 2nd edition to Vampires Dark Ages Masquerade, and even Gygax's Dangerous Journeys).
The group, with minor changes, is composed of quite skilled roleplayers. Me and Mr. X (let's call him this way) are the group's DMs, and we usually DM 6/8 months long campaigns. We both are experienced DMs, but after 8 months we usually end up feeling the urge to just roleplay a single character, so we switch and relax while the other one takes up the role of DM.

The problem:
Lately, Mr. X has became dangerously genre-savy, and exploits every situation from a very different angle. Not that there's anything wrong with it in itself, but it's becoming difficult to DM in front of such a character.

Just as an example of his philosophy: The middle of the monologue makes a GREAT surprise round.
Really, sometimes I wonder if he just read this list (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19908546/1001_Things_to_DoSay_During_a_BBEGs_Monologue?pg=1 ).

The greatest problem comes from the fact that to "counter" his behaviour, I often have to resort to intelligent, competent and equally genre-savy BBEGs.
Which can be good or bad depending on the situation, but makes the whole thing a lot harder. Because if I optimize the brain of my bad guys, my good guys end up dead.

Let's face it: if BBEGs were an intelligent, prepared and competent bunch, there would be a whole lot of dead heroes lying around. Because the BBEG is (usually) stronger and richer, can have access to a whole lot more resources, is definitely ruthless, and had a lot of time to prepare and plan. It's just that "too perfect" BBEGs make pretty poor antagonists, imho.

What would you do? Would you try and explain to Mr. X that genre-savyness is sometimes worse for the campaign, and creates more problems than it solves (because it solves situations but screws the "classical" feeling), would you adapt and make your epic world an equally genre-savy one, or what?

Seriously, sometimes I am torn between my respect for the player's resourcefulness and the frustration I get for being unable to DM some serious epic.

What's your take on this?
(consider that I've been DMing for around 5/6 yers now, so I am no n00b and I can handle my players just fine... it's more a frustration problem on my part than a potential fun-breaking issue...)

(that, and the fact that I find there's some serious double standard if I let my players shoot the BBEG during his polite speech during dinner, while I make him invite them for dinner with the intention of bribing them instead of - say - kill them dead in their sleep).

Help!

The Glyphstone
2010-11-15, 10:53 AM
Could always match him trope-for-trope - Talking is a free action in D&D, so you're perfectly justified in giving a long monologue without any chance of interruption.

Asking him to cooperate with the narrative once in a while should be your first option though.

Vladislav
2010-11-15, 11:09 AM
In D&D, being genre-savvy sometimes means ignoring your own genre-savvyness. Too bad Mr. X doesn't understand this.

Echoes
2010-11-15, 11:12 AM
Paralyzation, EVERYWHERE. Have your BBEG only ever give speeches after the party has walked into his trapped room, triggering 50 symbols of stunning and a couple compulsion effects requiring them to kneel and listen to his voice. It's a good compromise between a BBEG who is so prepared he's invincible to the party, and one who is so fatally flawed that he isn't watching the person charging toward him with a knife. If the spells are set to expire as soon as he's done his monologue, then it does not put the characters at a disadvantage, while still giving you the freedom to play up the moment without being exploited.

I realize that the speech was only one example of the problems you're likely facing from this guy, but I find that most problems have quirkish solutions like this. It's all about finding ways to make your villains think creatively, without thinking intelligently.

TroubleBrewing
2010-11-15, 11:13 AM
Talking is a free action in D&D, so you're perfectly justified in giving a long monologue without any chance of interruption.

This. If he keeps interrupting your monologues, start using it against him. Whenever he starts talking in character, have someone cast Slapping Hand on him.

Mr.Smashy
2010-11-15, 11:14 AM
I have the same issue. I have been TTGing for some years now, and the most recent group i got together with is a trial to GM for, Namely because of their sheer expirience. I have found that you need to be flexible to a point, but if you feel that the player is distracting too much from the story you are trying to tell, Take him aside and mention something to him. If he is as expirienced as you say, he should understand.
Basically you need to stick to your guns, and run the game how you see fit. Perhaps next time the fool opens his mouth you slap a shaped silence spell on him or something. Who knows. its really up to you. Stick to your BFG. seeing as you're the DM, your gun is always bigger.

jseah
2010-11-15, 11:16 AM
You could go the other way and have both genre savvy enemies and good guys.

That perpetually-grinning and idiotic shopkeeper is really a Good side guy pretending to be a ditz so he doesn't attract suspicion in the BBEG controlled town.

The players have to be cautious when doing things, and occasionally, things will happen that they do not expect and cannot explain.
"But... but he's the Archmage who always detects poison before eating! How did he get poisoned from the soup?!"
- The Archmage's apprentice was taking over his position for that day and the BBEG saw an opportunity to cause widespread panic...


It makes for a more dynamic world. It is harder to run, since you and your players have to manage more information, but you get an immersive game and far more believable setting to play in.

Might want to remove the more "broken" information gathering spells and abilities. Or at least add counters to them.

Kurald Galain
2010-11-15, 11:16 AM
Just as an example of his philosophy: The middle of the monologue makes a GREAT surprise round.

The obvious answer to this is the Paranoia mutant power, "Evil Villain Soliloqui That Stops Time While It's Going On". It does precisely what you think it does, and makes for a great moderately-leveled wizard spell, too.

Aside from that, I would suggest giving players bonus XP for good roleplaying. Excessive genre-savviness is generally not good roleplaying.

Earthwalker
2010-11-15, 11:21 AM
I would go with the approach of just talking to Mr X and explain that his reactions are taking away form your enjoyment of the game.

I also have to point out one mechanic in the Torg Role playing system, as well as dice it also had cards. One card the Monolouge card was of course brilliant, able to be used by PCs and GM alike. It allowed you to monolouge without anyone taking an action till you had finished, beucase of GM fiat you could also once per session search for it in the deck and play it, worked well in the pulp superhero section of the game world.

Tavar
2010-11-15, 11:22 AM
Here's a question; if you're goal is to kill/incapacitate someone, why wouldn't you attack them while their occupied doing something else, say, giving a speech?

That's not genre savy, that's acting IC for any character with average Intelligence or Wisdom.

One way to solve this is to put barriers between the PC's and the BBEG. Wall of Force it always popular, but anything that denies Line of effect would work. Heck, even a simple glass window would provide something of an obstacle.

Or maybe have some sort of Magic speaker/intercom system, so the BBEF gives the speech while the PC's are going through his base, but before they reach him.

Psyx
2010-11-15, 11:27 AM
The middle of the monologue makes a GREAT surprise round.

We deal with this via the medium of the mantra "Shut up: Boxed text!"

Boxed text cannot be interrupted. The End.
It's the Law of Dramatic Licence. Just like you can't gun bad guys down during cut-scenes in computer games. We always state that D&D's physical laws must be different from ours, and here's an example of it.

If he whines, tell him it's a physical law in the universe that only bad guys can invoke. No save, no SR, no nothing. If he whines, drop a piano on his head.


If he REALLY whines, just say 'ok, everyone is level 20 with 5 million gold's worth of loot. End of campaign.' and put your books away. If queried why, then you can reveal that is essentially what's going to happen in the game, and everything else is just fluff and storytelling. If he clearly doesn't want to deal with and interact with the story and plot, then you won't either and have just skipped to the conclusion for him.

Shademan
2010-11-15, 11:29 AM
sounds like the player wanna win the game, rather than have fun

Psyx
2010-11-15, 11:30 AM
I also have to point out one mechanic in the Torg Role playing system, as well as dice it also had cards. One card the Monolouge card was of course brilliant, able to be used by PCs and GM alike. It allowed you to monolouge without anyone taking an action till you had finished, beucase of GM fiat you could also once per session search for it in the deck and play it, worked well in the pulp superhero section of the game world.


I was going to cite the Nile Empire as a great example of 'No: You can't do that because it wouldn't be cool, so the universe won't let you. Tough.'

GM pulled that one on us when we tried to interrupt the Gaunt Man during a monologue.

Psyx
2010-11-15, 11:31 AM
sounds like the player wanna win the game, rather than have fun

Which is why I like the option of letting them do so, in the least fun way possible.

Jan Mattys
2010-11-15, 11:34 AM
Here's a question; if you're goal is to kill/incapacitate someone, why wouldn't you attack them while their occupied doing something else, say, giving a speech?

The problem with this way of thinking is that it HAS to go both ways to be consistent.

So: here's a question: if your goal is to threaten the world with a stolen nuclear warhead, why would you tie Mr. Bond to your laser, say "I expect you to die", and leave, instead of ordering your guards to shoot him multiple times, and take an extra action to put a couple rounds through his already dead skull, just to be sure?

See? That's what bugs me. If I make things interesting by inviting Mr. Bond to dinner, I expect him to politely accept and "play his role", for the sake of the story, or at least pull of some stunts, but with style.

Thinking outside the box is cool. Exploting genre-savyness to gain an advantage is not.

(But this is personal preference, and I am willing to listen to people who think I am wrong. Seriously).

Shademan
2010-11-15, 11:37 AM
The problem with this way of thinking is that it HAS to go both ways to be consistent.

So: here's a question: if your goal is to threaten the world with a stolen nuclear warhead, why would you tie Mr. Bond to your laser, say "I expect you to die", and leave, instead of ordering your guards to shoot him multiple times, and take an extra action to put a couple rounds through his already dead skull, just to be sure?

See? That's what bugs me. If I make things interesting by inviting Mr. Bond to dinner, I expect him to politely accept and "play his role", for the sake of the story, or at least pull of some stunts, but with style.

Thinking outside the box is cool. Exploting genre-savyness to gain an advantage is not.

(But this is personal preference, and I am willing to listen to people who think I am wrong. Seriously).

We live by the code and we die by the code. Ignore it, and it will chew you up.

big teej
2010-11-15, 11:37 AM
This. If he keeps interrupting your monologues, start using it against him. Whenever he starts talking in character, have someone cast Slapping Hand on him.

wait, hold up, is this an actual spell?:smallconfused:

CarpeGuitarrem
2010-11-15, 11:38 AM
If you guys are skilled roleplayers, it doesn't seem to me like the guy is trying to "win". Maybe he's just exploring the idea of being genre-savvy, something like "why does nobody actually think of these things?"

In that case, it's either A) demonstrate why we invent these tropes or B) justify the tropes in the setting. Using a spell to freeze time for a monologue is a great idea.

And maybe mix up the villains between realistic ones who have to be taken down right and ones who are arrogant, flaunt their genre, and have the capability to do so.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-11-15, 11:43 AM
You have two options:

(1) Ask Mr. X to Play Nice
You're playing a Heroic Fantasy RPG and not a Deconstruction (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Deconstruction) of the same; BBEGs like to have dramatic speeches and Heroes like to kill Dragons without being Scry-and-Die'd beforehand. By all means feel free to out-savvy BBEGs in the long run, but stop abusing tropes to get a measly Surprise Round.

(2) Subvert (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SubvertedTrope?from=Main.Subverted) The Tropes
Keep using Tropes but switch them up enough so that a Dangerously Genre Savvy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DangerouslyGenreSavvy) character wil trip themselves up more often than not. When plotting, this is simplicity itself - just don't make every Vizier Evil. For villains themselves, this really shouldn't be a problem: unless every villain acts the same way (which is boring on its own) you should have some natural variance of Trope usage already.

Also: why are you granting Surprise Rounds in the midst of a Villain's Speech anyhow? Did the villain not expect to be attacked? :smallconfused:

Shademan
2010-11-15, 11:44 AM
point 3: you can ttake full defense action while talking :D

Kurald Galain
2010-11-15, 11:48 AM
"Okay, your attack hits, but it turns out that the bad guy was an illusion, and it dissipates. Twenty feet away, the bad guy appears in a cloud of smoke (or does he?), and continues his monologue."

valadil
2010-11-15, 11:53 AM
The problem with this way of thinking is that it HAS to go both ways to be consistent.


Agreed. You can't run a game with only one genre savvy person or group. It breaks in the way you've witnessed. Ask him to stop out of game or have the rest of your game roll with it. Maybe the villain's friends heard what happened and learn the folly of long speeches.

There is another option though. Make the villain's speech into something the players want to hear. Of course they're going to kill him if he's babbling. If he has something to say though, they might hold off until he says it. You could even play on this to exploit their genre-savvyness (genre-suave?). Put them in a situation where they have to extract info from a villain, but can't resort to torture. They take advantage of his tendency to give villain speeches and use that to draw the info out of him. The players don't change their behavior and you get to keep giving the speech.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-11-15, 11:55 AM
To be clear: I don't think you should focus on "countering" Mr. X with DM Fiat or things that look like DM Fiat. Obviously punishing him for his Genre Savviness is going to make him upset and provoke a more antagonistic relationship between you two.

Better to simply structure plots such that Genre Savviness is not always the way to go. If he's the only one abusing Tropes, then when you start varying the Tropes you employ everyone else (who is simply using the story they see) will start looking at Mr. X funny since he's making assumptions which have no basis in the game. When those assumptions turn out to be false, he'll either give up on them (if he had been using Genre Savviness because you ran very Conventional games) or his play style will become marginalized by the rest of the group - not by DM.

EDIT: Actually, having re-read the OP I wonder if the problem here is that the OP is simply using Tropes rather than understanding them.
For example, the villain invites the PCs to dinner for bribery purposes not because We Can Rule Together (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WeCanRuleTogether) is a Tropes but because heroes out for gold & glory can usually be bribed. He doesn't kill them in their sleep because Why Don't Ya Just Shoot Him (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlel164s0xw?from=Main.Whydontyajustshoothim) is a Trope but because he finds assassination dishonorable or he doesn't think he can assassinate the heroes that easily.

Now, you can run a game where every villain carries a Villain Ball (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainBall) and it can be fun but that only works if everyone involved agrees to play that kind of game. If everyone else (including the OP) is happy with that sort of game, you have to talk to Mr. X about his behavior - it's no different than a PC in a "diplomacy" game running around and killing everyone who opposes him.

However, if you aspire to DM a more "realistic" game then you need to come up with reasons why things are so. If there are good reasons for your characters to act in a particular way then it will either be harder to destroy them with pure Genre Savviness or their destruction will be perfectly appropriate as Mr. X will be exploiting the Fatal Flaw (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FatalFlaw) you gave the villain for just such exploitation.

Tyndmyr
2010-11-15, 11:55 AM
Im just gonna address the one example actually given, interrupting the monologue with combat.

It's possible you're overusing the villinous monologue. Sure, it's common, but eventually, any hero with two brain cells to rub together is going to realize that these monologues are the prelude to combat, he already knows the dude is evil, and he may as well shoot first.

Consider mixing it up. For instance, the monologue during combat. Have his mooks fight the players, while he utilizes spells to speak from safety. The monologue still happens, in an even more awesome setting, as they're killing their way to the bad guy.

And don't use a monologue too often. It goes from being interesting and thematic, if a bit typical, to being boring. When you have a DM that likes to frequently read off long paragraphs of marginally relevant flavor text, speeches, etc, you can visibly see players tune out. The initiative roll always pulls them back in, though. So...balance it so they don't tune out in the first place, if that's happening.

Jan Mattys
2010-11-15, 12:00 PM
Just to clarify: my relationship with Mr. X is not antagonistic in nature. Yet.

But that's because I grind my teeth everytime he shatters the unwritte rules of drama :smallsmile:

I'm asking for advice and wisdom because I am getting tired of grinding my teeth, of course, but I've been keeping the problem to myself so far, to avoid making mistakes out of my frustration.

Btw: the other players don't seem to care much about Mr. X's attitude. They didn't pick up his bad habits, but at the same time they see him as a quite efficient fellow and a decision maker, so while they acknowledge he lacks style, they find him useful (something I can understand, after all).

SamsDisciple
2010-11-15, 12:02 PM
Actually had a similar problem once when I was just a player, we were low level and found the BBEG and CR wise there was no chance of fighting him but during his dramatic monologue a PC acted very in character and attacked, he meant it as a symbolic defiance and didn't even expect to scratch the guy but when he triple critted the dm had to come up with something fast so that we could still have a campaign. Outside of some fumbling in shock that a level 5 paladin just dropped a level 20 vampire the rest of the campaign went great. Very likely your player is trying to play in character but another idea of how to stop him from doing that is to have a duped good guy king there at the dinner who would very likely arrest/execute the character if they try something like that. It would add to the drama and setting if you add likely restrictions where they can still act that way if they want but there are obvious consequences

Psyx
2010-11-15, 12:06 PM
wait, hold up, is this an actual spell?:smallconfused:

Yeah. It's in the SC.



Make the villain's speech into something the players want to hear.


There's a lot to be said for putting something 100% plot essential in there, near the end. Then when the players 'fail' the entire campaign because they don't know the BBEG's de-activation codes or whatever, you tell them where they screwed up and whose fault it was.

valadil
2010-11-15, 12:11 PM
There's a lot to be said for putting something 100% plot essential in there, near the end. Then when the players 'fail' the entire campaign because they don't know the BBEG's de-activation codes or whatever, you tell them where they screwed up and whose fault it was.

That wasn't quite what I had in mind. If you're going to do it like that, the players need to know that the villain has the codes and that he is the only source who has them. 5 minutes of speech they don't care about followed by 1 sentence that is crucial is not how you make them want to listen.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-11-15, 12:17 PM
Just to clarify: my relationship with Mr. X is not antagonistic in nature. Yet.

But that's because I grind my teeth everytime he shatters the unwritte rules of drama :smallsmile:
It kind of sounds like you're relying more on Tropes than is heathy in these games then.

I mean, it can be dramatic to invoke a Trope from time-to-time, but it usually helps if there's some in-game reason for its invocation. The Gnoll Warchief probably shouldn't spend his time Monologuing (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilGloating?from=Main.Monologuing) while it makes good sense for a Evil Senator to do so. Likewise, villains shouldn't invite heroes to dinner (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitle8nd319as?from=Main.NoMrBondIExpectYouToDine) unless the villain has something to gain from it; only the most arrogant BBEG is going to invite an oath-bound killer into his inner sanctum. Likewise, when the BBEG does take such an action, it should be a sign to the Players that the BBEG is an arrogant bastard who considers himself a man of wealth and taste.

How else does Mr. X foil your plots? If it's literally Genre Savviness (e.g. "The king is murdered? I kill the Chancellor (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilChancellor)!") then you just need to vary your plotting from time to time; there are plenty of people who may want the king dead - it doesn't always have to be the chancellor.

Could you elaborate a bit as to the ways Mr. X has foiled you in the past?

obliged_salmon
2010-11-15, 12:31 PM
In my experience, players like to make an impact, make their own choices, even if they're completely unsure how to go about it properly. Some suggestions, at least for the specific situation of "villainous monologue," include
A: give info before encountering the bad guy - the bomb under the chair is more interesting to the players if they know it's there.
B: learn the players' intentions beforehand - do they see the encounter going a certain way? use that as the point of preparation
i.e. "the dude invites you for dinner. do you go? why or why not?" then you know more or less what to expect
C: whatever the players' choices, make them matter - they kill your bad guy at the dinner table under parley? show the consequences. they're murderers now. how do they FEEL about that?

Ultimately, I'd advise looking at the problem from the player's perspective, and working at it from there.

Hope this helps.

fusilier
2010-11-15, 01:48 PM
"Ah, typical master criminal, loves the sound of his own voice." (Blackadder II)

While villains may be intelligent, like all people they will have flaws, although theirs are typically pretty dramatic (like megalomania). Also, heroes in James Bond like movies always escape from impossible situations in very improbable fashion. :-)

Anyway, with the particular example given, you could also try engineering the situation so the villain's speech can't be interrupted. Perhaps he could be out of range of an attack? Speaking in a very large area with good acoustics, like a cavern or cathedral. Or even out of sight, hiding in shadows while he elaborates on his plans for world-domination, the echoic nature of the chamber preventing one from being certain where his voice is coming from.

Merellis
2010-11-15, 01:59 PM
Read this list.

Here is what your Evil Overlord should do. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilOverlordList)

That should be all you need to read.

nedz
2010-11-15, 02:05 PM
If Mr X has become predictable, then He's just going to trigger a trap; isn't he ?

It could be as simple as the BBEG readying an action a disintegrate should anyone interrupt him, or simply appearing via Project Image.

Tengu_temp
2010-11-15, 02:17 PM
If the player attacks the villain mid-monologue, it turns out the villain had a prepared action: if any of the heroes attack me, attack them. Combat starts. Villain continues talking through the combat.

Though the "make a barrier" and "talking is a free action" ideas work too.

oxybe
2010-11-15, 04:26 PM
i'm one of those "attack during the monologue" guys. here's my persepctive

no drama is better then bad drama: the monologue is only as interesting as the lead up to it. if we have no investment in the villain and we have no reason to believe he has information we want... why should we let him talk? for some false sense of drama that was not invoked beforehand?

i've personally met very few DMs that could pull off the villainous monologue well, and even fewer who would make me want to listen. while you can use GM fiat to say "no you can't attack mid-speech" having a player say "call me when he's done talking, i'll be playing the DS/PS3/XBox/watching Doctor Who" is far worse.

and forcing a single line of information in end of a 15 minute monlogue? lame.

give the players a reason to want to listen to his speech, rather then force the speech on them.

while "talking is a free action" can be used both ways, i'm sure all GMs (myself included) have at some time said "alright, this is ridiculous. enough talking" after the players have spent several minutes discussing current round-by-round events. every. single. round.

drama requires investment. you want to hear the villainous speeches of the movie and comic villains because you're invested. you want to hear what they have to say. the "shoot mid speech" relies on the villain expecting the characters to actually care about him just enough to listen to what he has to say, but not so much that they WANT to kill him on sight.

if the players have never interacted with the end-of-campaign villain directly and have usually dealt with the underlings and generals more... then you may find your climactic battle less then climactic... because the players don't care about him. they might care about what he's done and his methods, but no real investment in him. which means anything he says is not going to ring with the party. they cared far more about Lord Vorpal Von Hackenslash with whom they've tussled with on several occasions then Emperor Gauntface the XIIth who was masterminding the whole thing from his comfy chair.

think about it this way: i do front-line tier 1 tech support. i only really deal with my manager, his boss, the QA people, the tier 2 techs, CR and very VERY rarely engineering (since i have to translate for them).

of those people, only my manager, tier 2 and CR are the ones i really talk to on any regular basis.

A) my manager helps with precedural questions. also hands out candy for a job well done. seriously. i got like 2 jell-o pudding cups once. dude rocks.
B) tier 2 gives me exceptions to do stuff and actually do my job and will sometimes take over the calls with unruly customers.
C) CR handles things tier 2 simply can't.

QA only calls on you if you F*** up really badly or are doing some sort of evaluation for the center. my manager's manager only when she has big announcements or is doing an evaluation on him (he listens in on one of my calls, she looks over the whole scenario as he gives me feedback) and as stated, i only talk to engineering when it's absolutely necessary.

higher up then that and i really don't care. i've never met the owner/ceo. i don't care about the owner/ceo... it's not even his name on my pay stub. he's the big boss, but he's rather faceless to me. most of the higher management is like that really. CEOs may come and go but a good manager/supervisor is hard to replace.

this really all boils down to the fact that you only really care about the people in your monkeysphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number). also here (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html)for the cracked.com take in layman's terms. find a way to add this NPC into the list of "characters my PC gives a damn about". easiest way to do so is to create tension between the two.

so create some tension between the two parties... enough that there is some conflict and that the two parties will want to talk. otherwise you just have an evil dictator making his ego-stroking speech to give the sniper enough time to get into position.

TL;DR

make sure the group likes the monologues then make the group want listen to this NPC by implicating him directly in their lives. make the NPC important to the group and not just the story and even guys like me are usually willing to listen to his long-winded speeches..

Kizara
2010-11-15, 08:17 PM
i'm one of those "attack during the monologue" guys. here's my persepctive

no drama is better then bad drama: the monologue is only as interesting as the lead up to it. if we have no investment in the villain and we have no reason to believe he has information we want... why should we let him talk? for some false sense of drama that was not invoked beforehand?

i've personally met very few DMs that could pull off the villainous monologue well, and even fewer who would make me want to listen. while you can use GM fiat to say "no you can't attack mid-speech" having a player say "call me when he's done talking, i'll be playing the DS/PS3/XBox/watching Doctor Who" is far worse.

and forcing a single line of information in end of a 15 minute monlogue? lame.

give the players a reason to want to listen to his speech, rather then force the speech on them.

while "talking is a free action" can be used both ways, i'm sure all GMs (myself included) have at some time said "alright, this is ridiculous. enough talking" after the players have spent several minutes discussing current round-by-round events. every. single. round.

drama requires investment. you want to hear the villainous speeches of the movie and comic villains because you're invested. you want to hear what they have to say. the "shoot mid speech" relies on the villain expecting the characters to actually care about him just enough to listen to what he has to say, but not so much that they WANT to kill him on sight.

if the players have never interacted with the end-of-campaign villain directly and have usually dealt with the underlings and generals more... then you may find your climactic battle less then climactic... because the players don't care about him. they might care about what he's done and his methods, but no real investment in him. which means anything he says is not going to ring with the party. they cared far more about Lord Vorpal Von Hackenslash with whom they've tussled with on several occasions then Emperor Gauntface the XIIth who was masterminding the whole thing from his comfy chair.

think about it this way: i do front-line tier 1 tech support. i only really deal with my manager, his boss, the QA people, the tier 2 techs, CR and very VERY rarely engineering (since i have to translate for them).

of those people, only my manager, tier 2 and CR are the ones i really talk to on any regular basis.

A) my manager helps with precedural questions. also hands out candy for a job well done. seriously. i got like 2 jell-o pudding cups once. dude rocks.
B) tier 2 gives me exceptions to do stuff and actually do my job and will sometimes take over the calls with unruly customers.
C) CR handles things tier 2 simply can't.

QA only calls on you if you F*** up really badly or are doing some sort of evaluation for the center. my manager's manager only when she has big announcements or is doing an evaluation on him (he listens in on one of my calls, she looks over the whole scenario as he gives me feedback) and as stated, i only talk to engineering when it's absolutely necessary.

higher up then that and i really don't care. i've never met the owner/ceo. i don't care about the owner/ceo... it's not even his name on my pay stub. he's the big boss, but he's rather faceless to me. most of the higher management is like that really. CEOs may come and go but a good manager/supervisor is hard to replace.

this really all boils down to the fact that you only really care about the people in your monkeysphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number). also here (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html)for the cracked.com take in layman's terms. find a way to add this NPC into the list of "characters my PC gives a damn about". easiest way to do so is to create tension between the two.

so create some tension between the two parties... enough that there is some conflict and that the two parties will want to talk. otherwise you just have an evil dictator making his ego-stroking speech to give the sniper enough time to get into position.

TL;DR

make sure the group likes the monologues then make the group want listen to this NPC by implicating him directly in their lives. make the NPC important to the group and not just the story and even guys like me are usually willing to listen to his long-winded speeches..

I find it mildly ironic that you decry monologues by monologuing about your job.

Valid points but a bit unintentionally funny. :)

oxybe
2010-11-15, 09:01 PM
true, but unlike the monologing GM, i at least offer a TL;DR for the readers at home :smallbiggrin:

Callista
2010-11-15, 09:10 PM
I think your player is acting logically, and forcing you to do the same. As a DM, you're already doing a lot of rolling with the punches, because let's face it, any decent player will change the storyline just by being there and playing his PC in character. It's the people who assume that they can't change the story who are really problematic, because they're the ones who are just going to walk up and hit things in a very boring fashion, without adding a thing to your campaign. Players who don't bring in new ideas are little better than dicebots; and do you really want that?

Do talk to the player. Explain that you can only think so fast, and if he's going to do anything particularly surprising, you want some warning so that you can plan the villain's response. That should be standard procedure for any character with powers that can change the story--the guy with the sky-high diplomacy who can unexpectedly start a slave rebellion; or the guy with the ridiculous stealth who can sneak in and assassinate the enemy leader; or, obviously, the party spellcaster. Make him give the poor DM some warning first--let you get time plan for this stuff, so that you aren't sitting there with your jaw hanging open, going, "But... but, you just skipped two hours worth of game material!"

Warlawk
2010-11-15, 10:03 PM
I don't think I've ever been in a game (at least not one worth remembering) where there was a true honest to goodness Monologue. Plenty of dialogue, you know... where players interact and feel like they're part of the unfolding story. A monologue? Cannot ever remember one. Which means either it never happened or it was so terribly dull I just don't remember it.

In a game with any sort of political/social "combat" there will be plenty of situations where you might sit down and have dinner with your enemy. It sounds like this was the situation, and MrX just skipped a few steps and went straight to combat. This means a number of things.

First and foremost it means that the PCs probably do not have proof of the evil actions this guy was doing. They might know, but they lack the proof necessary to show someone else. So, they just assaulted what is likely a noble or influential person, and murdered him in cold blood in his own home.

That carries a lot of legal repercussions. The party is now criminals. Even should they provide proof of said actions, there will be plenty of people who doubt the accuracy of mysterious proof that just shows up after the party has conveniently murdered this poor guy. Likely that the BBEG has friends of similar leanings in positions of power who will make the situation worse for the players by undermining their attempts to prove this guy was evil. One important note here is that in many settings even if the guy was evil and acting on it, if he was a noble he would have been well within his legal rights and even should the PCs prove his actions, it wouldn't matter because he was within his rights and now they are murderers.

Aside from legal issues you have social issues. Legitimate nobles are not likely to ever let the PCs within sight of them for fear of potentially being murdered. If the society in question has "Hospitality traditions" specifically involving the duties and privileges of host and guest, they have just violated another major taboo and are unlikely to be accepted in any establishment of repute. No services available at taverns, temples etc because you have violated a very important social norm and cannot be trusted.

Additionally, any future BBEGs who may have heard about this encounter are likely to consider you to be a wild card and very dangerous. They won't invite you to dinner, they'll just pay a few silver to have your boot-leather-stew poisoned in that rathole of an dive flophouse you have to eat in, since you are no longer welcome in any respectable establishment.

There are plenty of ways to deal with this strictly within the game setting.

If your BBEG is in a position of power and particularly clever, he was expecting such an attack and either had magical defenses in place, or was using a projected image to monologue. (This has already been said... bear with me) The kicker is, he expected the attack and made sure to admit to nothing that is strictly against the law of the land, and there are law abiding legitimate ambassadors from surrounding kingdoms watching this unfold from concealment around the dining hall.

This scenario is much, much worse for your PCs as they have just become international criminals. Even should many nations not like said person, they cannot endorse such an unlawful action. The PCs are now likely unwelcome in all those kingdoms upon pain of death. Possible excommunication from churches and reputable organizations is likely.

Aside from all these considerations, it is likely a chaotic act which could cause alignment conflicts.

Those are the first things that come to mind off the top of my head. If the players don't want to play nice and help you tell the story, then let them sleep in the bed they've made for themselves.

TechnOkami
2010-11-16, 01:16 AM
Hide the BBEG and have him talk to the party via his mind, and only after his monologue is done, reveal his location.

faceroll
2010-11-16, 02:20 AM
Illusions. Use them.

Thrawn4
2010-11-16, 03:11 AM
make sure the group likes the monologues then make the group want listen to this NPC by implicating him directly in their lives. make the NPC important to the group and not just the story and even guys like me are usually willing to listen to his long-winded speeches..
+1
DM fiat is the wrong way to counter the problem, it will only annoy your players. A monologue only makes sense in certain circumstances. For example, if you want a dinner, let it take place in public when the characters have no proof againgt the bad guy and would be charged of murder.

Jan Mattys
2010-11-16, 06:36 AM
First of all, thanks to everybody for your feedback.

I do understand my pal's motives, really. It's just that sometimes it might become a problem.

And I am glad so many of you can link to tvtropes. :smallbiggrin: But really, I'm not particularly fond of drama, maybe I just gave you the wrong impression. And it has nothing to do with monologues in themselves, either. It was just an example of the attitude.

More examples: if my group knows that there's a group of evil summoners in the basement of a mansion up a lone hill (Call of Cthulhu game), they bring the dynamite and they just blow the thing up from the outside.

If the cultists had kidnapped a baby and were using her for the ritual, the usual standard approach of Mr. X is: "if we can save the baby, we will. But if the saving part looks to difficult to pull off, it is a fair trade to suffer an innocent loss and have 30+ madmen killed. The world will be a better place tomorrow, even if the baby is dead. And even better, we don't risk our lives. Since our knowledge of what lurks in the shadows is deeper than the average man's, our life is important. If we survive, we can continue our struggle. So, having a baby killed is sad, but on the other hand the band of heroes survives to fight another day, and scores a touchdown for the Good Guys by blowing up an entire cell of cultists with minimal risks.".

So they approach the mansion, kill a couple guards and the dogs, and burn the place to the ground without even looking inside.

Now, it DOES make sense. But they also know they were "supposed" to take a look, face some risks, gather information, and possibly save the baby (or not, but that's not the point).

Of course, in order to make the above possible, I have planned a security net around the house made up of some private guards (four or five) and some guarding dogs. All the other guys are inside because hey, this is the most important ritual of the year, they all want to be in!

Now, in order to keep things interesting, I am forced by Mr. X's approach to consider things from another perspective. I have to make sure the approach to the house becomes a major problem, instead of just "step 1 out of 5" in the roughly planned session, because that's probably where the heat of action will ever be.. So, heavy guards, maximum security, and a paranoid head cultist instead of a low-profile one gathering fellow-conspirators in a basement.

Sometimes, this just frustrates me. I can and I do adapt, but it frustrates me nonetheless.

How would you react if your players, in front of the main entrance of the dungeon, would change the course of the lava river instead, in order to flood the dungeon with lava and be done with it? :smallbiggrin:

It's not just monologuing or me willing to railroad my players. It's just that I believe some sort of mutual pact of non-screwingup between the players and the Game Master brings better results in terms of enjoyement for all the involved.

My main problem with talking with Mr. X is that I don't want to sound like I am punishing him for his initiative. I do value his "thinking outside the box" skills in the highest regard... but sometimes, I feel he's almost metagaming his way to success instead of playing with the same cards as everybody else.

I do pull punches with my Bad Guys, in order to create a more interesting setting and story, and in order to leave (sometimes tiny) gaps that the players can exploit. If he doesn't, it's like he's sitting with us playing poker, while hiding aces up his sleeve.

Of course I can always shoot him with a .45 when he uses one of his aces if I feel like it, I am the DM after all. But that sounds hardly a solution...

Kizara
2010-11-16, 08:11 AM
More examples: if my group knows that there's a group of evil summoners in the basement of a mansion up a lone hill (Call of Cthulhu game), they bring the dynamite and they just blow the thing up from the outside.

Good tactics.


If the cultists had kidnapped a baby and were using her for the ritual, the usual standard approach of Mr. X is: "if we can save the baby, we will. But if the saving part looks to difficult to pull off, it is a fair trade to suffer an innocent loss and have 30+ madmen killed. The world will be a better place tomorrow, even if the baby is dead. And even better, we don't risk our lives. Since our knowledge of what lurks in the shadows is deeper than the average man's, our life is important. If we survive, we can continue our struggle. So, having a baby killed is sad, but on the other hand the band of heroes survives to fight another day, and scores a touchdown for the Good Guys by blowing up an entire cell of cultists with minimal risks.".

A bit cowardly, and unheroic, but pragmatic. Its reasonable to not completely overcommit to saving the child at all costs, but to just say 'its not worth the bother' is not something I'd expect out of a heroic party.


So they approach the mansion, kill a couple guards and the dogs, and burn the place to the ground without even looking inside.

Now, it DOES make sense. But they also know they were "supposed" to take a look, face some risks, gather information, and possibly save the baby (or not, but that's not the point).

They took less risk, and gather less reward (no loot, important info, gratitude of locals for saving the baby). A rather uninteresting way to play I'll grant you. Perhaps next time place some valuable treasure (and let them know about it) in the house.


Of course, in order to make the above possible, I have planned a security net around the house made up of some private guards (four or five) and some guarding dogs. All the other guys are inside because hey, this is the most important ritual of the year, they all want to be in!

Now, in order to keep things interesting, I am forced by Mr. X's approach to consider things from another perspective. I have to make sure the approach to the house becomes a major problem, instead of just "step 1 out of 5" in the roughly planned session, because that's probably where the heat of action will ever be.. So, heavy guards, maximum security, and a paranoid head cultist instead of a low-profile one gathering fellow-conspirators in a basement.

Sometimes, this just frustrates me. I can and I do adapt, but it frustrates me nonetheless.

I understand what you are saying, and why it would be frustrating, as he is changing the metagame. However, an evolving metagame can be extremely rewarding as well! With more intelligent, realistic adversaries your PCs will find greater satisfaction in victory. Now when they try to set up explosives, taking out enough guards to give themselves time, they might stir the hornets nest completely and rouse the household, resulting in a large-scale, uncontrolled (by them) combat. After this, sneaking into the house and doing some spying is probably the more pragmatic idea.



How would you react if your players, in front of the main entrance of the dungeon, would change the course of the lava river instead, in order to flood the dungeon with lava and be done with it? :smallbiggrin:

I would be irritated, from two perspectives:

1) Unambitious players are boring, and a chore to DM. If you aren't interested in going into the dungeon to get the rewards it offers, why bother being and adventurer in the first place?

2) If I'm expected to provide you a game, I expect you to play the game. It's essentially griefing the DM to do something like this.


It's not just monologuing or me willing to railroad my players. It's just that I believe some sort of mutual pact of non-screwingup between the players and the Game Master brings better results in terms of enjoyement for all the involved.

My main problem with talking with Mr. X is that I don't want to sound like I am punishing him for his initiative. I do value his "thinking outside the box" skills in the highest regard... but sometimes, I feel he's almost metagaming his way to success instead of playing with the same cards as everybody else.

I hear you, but there's a difference between good tactics and pragmatism and refusing to play or intentionally griefing you. Instead of designing combat encounters dramatically, design them tactically: think about how they would defend attacks, what would be in place to stop common magic tricks, and so forth. Its more work but once you start thinking that way its mostly intuitive.


I do pull punches with my Bad Guys, in order to create a more interesting setting and story, and in order to leave (sometimes tiny) gaps that the players can exploit. If he doesn't, it's like he's sitting with us playing poker, while hiding aces up his sleeve.

Of course I can always shoot him with a .45 when he uses one of his aces if I feel like it, I am the DM after all. But that sounds hardly a solution...

yea, it basically sounds like you just need to step up and run the game on a higher difficulty level.

Alternately, if the rest of the group really couldn't handle it (or adapt and learn to be able to handle it), you can ask him to tone-down his critical thinking to the others to remain comfortable playing more casually.

Grogmir
2010-11-16, 09:17 AM
imo anyone who attacks during a mono is not on.

Yes even if its a 15 minute (but seriously 15? My wedding speech only went on for 10) No speech should be longer than 1.

Still this is the DMs time - occasional he has to dispense further information for you - they are trying to build the world and the atmosphere for you (and everyone else around the table remember)

Saying - I attack - well thanks - like another person said - there's 500xp and 1000gp. Adventure over. Otherwise Whats the point?

Speak to the DM afterwards if he's hogging to much time - but just cutting through a monolog?

Its the same as saying - 'I Move on' right in the middle of a descriptive text.

- - -

Now Mechanics wise - How exactly did he get a surprise round? I assume the BBEG could see the player - could see him draw his sword - could see him approach the BBEG - could see him swing his sword at him - I don't know how or why you gave him a surprise round.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-11-16, 10:11 AM
General Comments

More examples: if my group knows that there's a group of evil summoners in the basement of a mansion up a lone hill (Call of Cthulhu game), they bring the dynamite and they just blow the thing up from the outside.

If the cultists had kidnapped a baby and were using her for the ritual, the usual standard approach of Mr. X is: "if we can save the baby, we will. But if the saving part looks to difficult to pull off, it is a fair trade to suffer an innocent loss and have 30+ madmen killed. The world will be a better place tomorrow, even if the baby is dead. And even better, we don't risk our lives. Since our knowledge of what lurks in the shadows is deeper than the average man's, our life is important. If we survive, we can continue our struggle. So, having a baby killed is sad, but on the other hand the band of heroes survives to fight another day, and scores a touchdown for the Good Guys by blowing up an entire cell of cultists with minimal risks.".

So they approach the mansion, kill a couple guards and the dogs, and burn the place to the ground without even looking inside.
Now, I've never played CoC, but isn't "killing babies without trying to save them" something that would drop SAN? I feel like there must be some mechanic to prevent genre savvy investigators from nuking Cthulhu from orbit every time.

Anyhow, the moral of the story for these kinds of situations is: stop providing situations where "nuking from orbit" is the appropriate response. If Mr. X always plays baby-killing pragmatists then simple morality isn't going to convince him to try and do things "the hard way."


How would you react if your players, in front of the main entrance of the dungeon, would change the course of the lava river instead, in order to flood the dungeon with lava and be done with it? :smallbiggrin:
"Huh. Well, you just destroyed a massive treasure trove. Good job, I guess. So, if you're not interested in looting dungeons what would you like to do?"
In summary: Mr. X is not interested in the stories you are telling.

For him, investigating a house isn't interesting; rescuing babies isn't interesting; interacting with BBEGs isn't interesting. The reason that Players "follow the rails" - so to speak - is because they're having a good time: they listen to the BBEG because they want to hear what he has to say not because "that's how it's done."

So, ask Mr. X what he wants to get out of gaming. After the CoC incident, for example, you should have asked him "huh, I thought you might have liked investigating the cult, making a few SAN checks, and maybe saving an Innocent in the process. I guess not - so what would you like to do in the next game?"

Maybe he does just like hunting down and killing things in spectacular fashions. If so (and everyone else is having fun) then have fewer "saving babies" missions and more "Delta Green" missions. It's more reasonable than throwing SpecOps guards around a crazy cultist's mansion.

Dada
2010-11-16, 10:27 AM
If the player attacks the villain mid-monologue, it turns out the villain had a prepared action: if any of the heroes attack me, attack them. Combat starts. Villain continues talking through the combat.

This would be my solution. Either the villain has a readied action, or combat just starts normally with everyone rolling initiative. I don't think the villain should be surprised that the heroes attack him.

Either way, he can continue talking through the combat if it is important - or he can just stop talking, making the players miss the exposition. If they actually care about what the villain has to say, they will probably get the message and stop interrupting after this happens a couple of times.

Edit: More generally, I think the above post has it covered. Find out what challenges the player would be interested in, or what motivation he needs. If he can't answer this, then he is probably trying to bypass the adventures as a challenge. Either let his approach have some unfortunate consequences - blowing a house up completely doesn't sound like an approach which the government or the public will like. Maybe some crucial clue to the next step in the plan is buried in the rubble or destroyed now.

You could also just let him succeed. That would probably make him bored quickly. But yeah, the best approach is to talk to him, and find out why he is doing it, and either accommodate his wishes or kindly ask him to play along.

oxybe
2010-11-16, 11:28 AM
it could also be a difference in gaming philosophy.

i'm gaming under 2 different GMs.

the first is running an adventure path. it's understood that this is a highly railroaded game from the get-go and this is what we signed up for. we try not to mess up too much by, to quote a previous path he ran with us, "burn the boat" but stuff happens.

savage tide spoiler
in the savage tide AP, you eventually highjack a pirate ship and use it to travel southwards to further the campaign. rather then fight the pirates, we lit their boat on fire and killed them as they tried to escape.

oops.

the second effectively gives us a scenario and the NPCs usually tell us the end result they would like, or the PCs decide to independently check something out. how we achieve it is up to us since it's more of a monster of the week deal.

something happens > PCs investigate > ??? > resolution

next week something else happens, which may or may not be connected to the previous week's event.

the second game allows us a lot more freedom when it comes to how we solve a problem. sometimes diplomacy is needed, sometimes we simply do an alpha strike.

sometimes we burn the boat down.

all i can say is make sure your expectations & the player expectations are the same or you might find yourself in situations where you don't want your boat burned down, and the PCs are preparing molotov cocktails and greek fire.

the DM vs Player mentality is a bad road to go down and i don't recommend it. rather then have him interrupt your speeches, you may find him simply bringing down the house a lot more often.

Vaecae
2010-11-16, 02:32 PM
This can happen with anyone genre savvy or not, I've had the same thing from someone who is anything but... The thing is you have to make them care, now about what is the trick. If they don't care it doesn't matter if your speech is one minute or twelve, but I would suggest never more then three or four if you want to keep momentum.

I've played with players who were like chaos in a bottle, but the thing is that bottle can be aimed. I'm talking a pair of guys who literally went down alleys killing anyone in them while the rest of the part was trying to investigate a magic shop. The thing is when it mattered I could usually get them to behave long enough to set up my idea and then let them loose.

You have to have three things in play to control someone who is either overly aware of the 'potential' plot or who simply doesn't want to go with it.

1 Make them have a reason to care, be that playing on their personality, or on the character's personality, doesn't matter as long as they can feel invested somehow. You can even use metagaming to your advantage if you know how to make your players think about things, or rather think more about them like you do in the setting as the DM.

2 Have there be consequences. In the above they got away with their slaughter because they were in a border town on the edge of a desert, where as the main town in the setting is patrolled regularly by paladins, thus they knew damn well if they tried the same there they would be captured and put to trial or just outright slain, and I made them very aware of that from the start of things.

3 You have to be ready to reward as well as punish. I do this with DM points, a value that I make the players aware they are gaining or losing via roleplay, but I never tell them exactly how much they have. They know if they go into negatives I will seek to mess them up because they are not playing the game like it's meant to be played, however they know if they make me aware of a desire they have, be it an experience item ect... that if they are in the favorable range of DM points that I will give them the oppertunity to get this thing they desire, but that it is still an oppertunity they must take up when it presents itself.

Ex: I had two players, both desired the same item, a ring of enlarge person. I knew this, and I knew one wanted it more then the other, but I still wanted to let them work that out via roelplay rather then give them both one they'd have to figure out a compromise. These are the same two chaos in a bottle type guys from above. So they had a semi-random encounter with a large crocodile. I'd already established critter parts are part of your loot, they can be sold or traded. So they gutted and skinned it. In it's stomach I had them find a very strangely oversized fish.

One of them picked up on the way I had described it and he immediately slit the fish and found a ring of enlarge in it's throat, which I described in such a way that the other player relized what they had and hilarity insued as they tussled over it a little and we all had great fun. That alone did alot.

It added a reward for their behavior, made them roleplay the characters in a situation they both desired, and makes them always pay close attention to details I give them about anything, perticularly if it's unusual, because I normally have a reason for why it's a certian way. This sets them up to better play and cooperate with my desires as DM later, even when they occasionally go on a murderious rampage in the middle of no where.

My reward and punishment system works, at least with the group I play with. There's flaws to it, such as there are 2 of my players who do really poorly when in a group, but if I play with them one on one or with just them and a single other party member they are much better. This means sometimes they get the short end of the DM points stick because they just don't know how to come out of their shell and play with others.

I've had to remedy this different ways with each of them, one by having to always try to put a brighter spotlight on what he does compared to the others because he has issues feeling like just one piece of something, he has to be bigger to feel good about it. The other guy likes to be able to do his own thing while the party does theirs, so sometimes we pass notes or messages in silence and I essentially run a sub-game for him where sometimes he can walk away and do something by himself and still be part of the group when he wants to. On the other hand sometimes he is the silent second DM where we still converse mostly where others don't hear, but he is telling me things he thinks would make the game more interesting. Sometimes he even plays 'NPCs' for me, instead of being part of the group he's one of the enemies/allies they have to deal with as if he were run by me as the DM.

I bring up the second guy mostly because the original post mentioned that this player who is being problomatic sometimes takes up the storytelling. If he is acceptive of the idea you might make some sort of compromise with him where he is actually playing counter to the other guys, not nessisarily an enemy, but like another plot devise. You let him become part of the narrative. Let him be a driving force of the story. This will make him care, and keep him from wanting to take shortcuts or advantage of a story telling trope. It will make it feel more like it's his game he's playing not just your's, which is the sense I get off of it.

Personally I've dealt with the player who will take every advantage real or imagined in a set up. This makes it hard because you either have to have planned for everything you personally can imagine and then some, or be extremely ready to roll with it. There's a reason I prefer sandboxes in overarcing settings, it gives me the flex to do whatever the players seem to want, and if I find them avoiding my hooks repeatedly because of disinterest I will start to question them on what they want and how I can give it to them. That is the most important part of being a DM is giving the other's what they want. Sometimes this shatters your plans, and you have to sweep up the pieces and go somewhere else.

Deal with events that shatter a story in a few ways dependant on what they did to muck things up, but this is my basic list of responces. Have immediate and significant consequences if appropriate, you deal with those for the rest of the session. This can be as simple as 'okay you shortcutted the story turn around and go back to your quest giver guys', random encounters fill the space between. On the other hand you could have a true and dramatic shift in play. Like with the sudden attack at a dinner gathering, my first responce is someone in the crowd screaming "Guards! Help!" and play from there. Give them something just as sudden and/or a let down of sorts, for jumping the shark and getting out of hand. Just remember when they do behave like intended you have to make it worth their while.

After they do something like that to me, I always stop at least one of them and ask why they choose that instead of what I had planned, usually not revealing what that had been unless it was obvious. Sometimes the answer has actually been "Well you made it sound too creepy." which left me dazed and confused as to why and so I asked, and I kept asking till I understood what I had done wrong as a DM in how I represented the challenge.

It all comes down to you as DM. Some people make you work harder then you should need to. You have to deal with them individually and work it out. Sometimes that means privleges that the others may not get, and that can mean explaining it to the others too. Sometimes that means just setting them down and going, okay you're doing this and it's causing me this, and ask why and what they are trying to achieve. Sometimes it just flat means someone needs a time out, it could be you or them, but one of you needs to be made to do something else till things can be solved. Sometimes it can even mean going to another person and having them help fix it.

Whatever it takes your job as DM is to see to it that everyone has fun, and that includes you. If they don't want to play nice, you play dirty, fight fire with fire and either it will burn itself out, or someone else will eventually step in and throw water on the both of you. It's prefered if you don't have to do that, but sometimes you have to handle someone being difficult by being just as difficult. If you do have to do that though make it clear why and what they can do to make it stop. Give them the option, if they don't take it that's their own fault, and they choose to suffer the consequences good or bad.

Player happiness comes first for me, but if I'm not having fun, it won't be long till they're not either. I know this, they know this, we work our stuff out one way or another. Sometimes I feel like I give more then they do, but that's my job as the DM, as long as it doesn't feel like they're abusing that, then it's alright and we move on to the next game. We enjoy it, we go home happy.

Warlawk
2010-11-16, 03:19 PM
More examples: if my group knows that there's a group of evil summoners in the basement of a mansion up a lone hill (Call of Cthulhu game), they bring the dynamite and they just blow the thing up from the outside.


Solution 1: Someone in the house is thrown through a window and lives just long enough to cough blood in their faces and tell them that the ritual creates a protective shield around the cultists, and all the objects needed to pierce the shield were just destroyed in the explosion. The PCs get to watch as the rubble settles around a bunch of unharmed angry cultists. Baby dies, ritual is completed and the PCs have a big mess to deal with.

Solution 2: Everything goes as planned, they blow the place up and walk away from a bunch of dead cultists and a dead baby. Who killed the baby? The PCs did as will clearly be shown when the rubble is excavated and the baby is smashed by the falling, exploding house. That's some prison time there. Also, the owner (or whoever inherits the house) may want to have a word with you about blowing up the house. By "have a word" I mean sue you for the value of the house. Additionally, not only is setting off explosives inside city limits against the law, it is potentially a terrorist action and a task force will likely be dispatched to look into this. Hope you covered your tracks really well.



How would you react if your players, in front of the main entrance of the dungeon, would change the course of the lava river instead, in order to flood the dungeon with lava and be done with it? :smallbiggrin:

They would get a tiny amount of XP and no treasure. As they moved away from the dungeon I would probably let them find the remains of a camp from a small group of adventurers who had just went in and started their own dungeon delve, or come to find out some people from a nearby village had been kidnapped, or something important stolen, something to that effect. Something to let the players know that taking those kind of actions without knowing the full story is bad. But mostly I would be sure to hint, subtly about all the xp and treasure they missed out on.



It's not just monologuing or me willing to railroad my players. It's just that I believe some sort of mutual pact of non-screwingup between the players and the Game Master brings better results in terms of enjoyement for all the involved.

My main problem with talking with Mr. X is that I don't want to sound like I am punishing him for his initiative. I do value his "thinking outside the box" skills in the highest regard... but sometimes, I feel he's almost metagaming his way to success instead of playing with the same cards as everybody else.

I do pull punches with my Bad Guys, in order to create a more interesting setting and story, and in order to leave (sometimes tiny) gaps that the players can exploit. If he doesn't, it's like he's sitting with us playing poker, while hiding aces up his sleeve.

Of course I can always shoot him with a .45 when he uses one of his aces if I feel like it, I am the DM after all. But that sounds hardly a solution...

It really sounds like you want different types of games. People have already said to talk to the player. I would add my voice to that. If you're worried about seeming like you're stomping on his creativity... say something like this:

"I love your out of the box solutions, but do you think you could apply them to the situations inside the encounter instead of blowing up the whole encounter site?"

As a DM he should already know how much work went into prepping a house full of cultists that likely had a dozen or more encounters or points of interest inside.

If that doesn't work, use a massive plothammer on them. Maybe the baby the cultists had was chosen for a reason and is the reborn soul of The Chosen One. Whoops, pc's didn't save him and the soul has been corrupted and becomes a horrible supernatural evil far beyond the power of the PCs to stop. Don't be subtle. Destroy a city and hundreds of thousands of people and be sure the PCs know it was squarely their fault because they couldn't be bothered to go inside and get the full story before they blew the place up.