PDA

View Full Version : On BBEGs



MrStabby
2016-03-11, 07:19 AM
So there is a common issue on these forums about how to handle conflict between players and the BBEG (Big Bad Evil Guy). The conflict seems to be that the objective - to fight the antagonist is at odds with the system - to level up and gain loot and new and improved abilities and at odds with the game as a story - that needs a longer narrative arc to be engaging.

Regarding railroading vs sandbox style DMing I tend towards the sandbox approach. My view is players should be able to do what they want but it is the DMs responsibility to create a world with events in that allow the players to tell a good story of the type they want and a world that gives them enough information and control to thrive. I.e. its fine to have a world where players can encounter a hostile lich at 4th level, it is less fine to create a world where they wander the streets at night killing people but the populace doesn't warn the PCs.

The plot points I discuss are around the world and the potential antagonist there; I am not saying anyone should force a story to unfold in a particular way, thats for the players but a DM should have a world where roleplay including a PCs fear for their own life should make taking actions that helps to unfold a rewarding plot come naturally without contrivance of Deus Ex.

Given this perspective I was wondering how people handled this in campaigns, both in abstract and in practice. There are a few ways I can see it working.

1) You get a tier of enemies. X does something bad so you fight against X, who you discover is working for Y who is working for Z... your BBEG keeps changing through the campaign.

Weaknesses: little involvement with the higher level BBEGs means feeling less connected from the start. It kind of feels like yanking the ball away and somewhat diminishing the PCs achievement. Strengths: well less chance of an awkward encounter where the BBEG TPKs the PCs or demonstrates his/her benevolence by letting them live.


2) BBEG at a distance. There is one BBEG who you have to fight but they are not around. Possibly on another plane at high levels or just behind thick walls at low levels. The campaign is about reaching them (and being at a level to fight them when you get there)


Weaknesses: There is no direct interaction between PCs and antagonist. It is a very abstract BBEG and it requires a bit more of your storytelling resource to make their presence felt. Strengths: low chance of a level inappropriate encounter. Consistant plot/objectives the PCs can get behind. Strong story theme.

3) Unknown BBEG. The PCs know there is a plot and an Evil Guy running things but they don't know who it is. By the time they find out they are at an appropriate level. Kind of similar to 2.

Weaknesses: This is only appropriate for some groups that don't mind a bit more of an investigative campaign. There are more limits to interaction between the BBEG and the PCs than many plot setups but it is less limiting than their complete absence. Strengths: The PCs are doing a lot of investigation so are paying a lot of attention to the BBEG's activities, abilities and character even if they are absent so the BBEG is a bit more engaging as an opponent.

4) Multiple BBEGs. A council of evil dragons or a cabal of sorcerers. You have to deal with them all and the remaining ones gain more power through time as well.

Weaknesses: There can be a lack of feeling of progress if the campaign is "Kill these 5 guys", you can feel you are doing the same thing over and over without progress. It requires differentiating the antagonists and, usually scaling them to PC level whilst at the same time meaning you should have answers for the PCs as to why some are so much tougher than others (although a "growing in power through time" theme coincidentally perfectly lets these guys grow as the PCs do with no risk of the PCs taking on the toughest guy at the lowest level). In more sandbox type settings there is a real risk that PCs will take on the hardest guy first. Strengths: Resilience and diversity. A final BBEG fight vs a fighter is potentially very different to one vs a spellcaster with different abilities, tactics and classes to the fore. This means your campaign can have All of these attributes in boss fights. Resilience comes from the ability to let PCs find innovative ways to easily defeat or circumvent certain BBEGs whilst not delivering an anticlimactic end to the campaign - there is a lesser campaign cost to the freedom you want to give your players.

5) A BBEG that has direct contact with the PCs. Possibly a fight, a threatening social interaction but the PCs cannot defeat them till they progress the story.

Weaknesses: Your players might decide to turn seeing the BBEG in the flesh as a good time to roll for initiative. A TPK may end the campaign or at least leave unhappy players. Alternatively you are taunting the players with an encounter they cant hope to win and you may be needing some of the PCs to act out of character for them to stand back. Strengths: If you can pull of an encounter where the PCs have a more important immediate objective than killing the BBEG but he is there hindering them then you can have everyone survive, there be some combat and a chance for the PCs to tangle with the BBEG. Enduring enemies can get players involved.


Each of these seems to have strengths and weaknesses and some of them can be combined:
A secret agent is procuring evil spell components for a cabal of wizards out of town, and the agent should be exposed. The agent is a smuggler who scuttles his ship in an effort to escape and there is a running fight with him as everyone rushes to lifeboats/teleportation circle to get off the ship. The cabal of wizards are casting a spell, to uncover what the spell is/does the PCs need to find out what each of them was doing, secrets they will not give up without a fight. They also reveal the smuggler was not serving the Cabal but it was the other way round and they have been casting spells to unlock his demonic heritage and his plans to take of the world with an army of demons. The PCs must defeat the librarian of a store of demonic lore to gain access to his library to find the information on how to catch the smuggler. It gives them the coordinates for a planar portal type spell to face off against the guy who has awakened some of his powers and has begun to assemble an army. Pad out with interesting side quests/obstacles as appropriate.

Ok, maybe that was a bit contrived trying to fit all of the above styles in but each antagonist can keep doing their thing regardless of what the PCs do - they find and kill the smuggler rather than fleeing the ship (or manage both) then the cabal can still cast the spell but they pick a different target. The PCs decide not to try and take down the smuggler before he gets all his powers - then there is a role to prepare the land for a demonic invasion and so on.

Are there other styles that I have missed out? Other ways of setting the relationship between a BBEG and the PCs? Maybe there is a friend turned enemy trope to consider - a la Goldeneye?

Raimun
2016-03-11, 07:54 AM
Play Metal Gear. In those games, it is common that the big bad does have contact with the protagonist during the game. You know, talking, taunting, interrogating, the hero observing the big bad at distance, a fight that is interrupted almost immediately, foreshadowing, background information via other sources and oh yes, a psychological need to hold a monologue about their evil plans. At first the big bad has no desire to fight the protagonist, while the hero does but can't realize that yet and the final confrontation is indeed final, ie. at the very end of the game.

And why do they do that? Why don't they just shoot Solid Snake at the start of the game when he scuba-dives at the enemy base? The actual reasons vary from game to game but the big bads always have some angle they are playing. That and the usual tendency to underestimate the lone protagonist and his support staff. They wouldn't be playing with them like if they didn't underestimate the hero. In short, they have a plan and according to that, the hero isn't supposed to die yet because he still has some use.

And why can't the hero just shoot the big bad when he makes an appearence, strutting around like an evil genius? Because the big bad wouldn't be much of a big bad if that was possible. At the beginning of the story the big bad holds all cards, all the advantages, a position of power. It's the hero's job to overcome all that during the story. It is at the end of the story, after the hero has cleared his way through the mooks, bested the lieutenants and the whole enemy base is exploding around them, when the hero and the villain fight it off, in a battle that will be the culmination of the whole story.

Edit: Of course, this all assumes that the big bad is the scheming type. If your villain is the spitting image of an aspiring khornate warlord who's modus operandi is to kill everyone on their sight because they want all the blood and skulls they can get, they probably have no reason to keep the heroes alive.

Storm_Of_Snow
2016-03-11, 07:56 AM
1) You get a tier of enemies. X does something bad so you fight against X, who you discover is working for Y who is working for Z... your BBEG keeps changing through the campaign.

Well, more like the big bad doesn't change, but the current opponent for the party does. Maybe the players know who's at the top, or maybe they don't.

IMO, it's more realistic - initially, when the PCs are picking at the edges, no one working for the BBEG knows they're a threat, but the deeper the party get to bringing the BBEG and their organisation down, the closer they get to the boss, the more threatening they are, and the more resources they'll bring to bear on them.

The Alec Trevellyan (Goldeneye) type villain would be a combination of unknown and direct contact, possibly with multiple villains, especially if they're working alongside the PCs (John Garrett in Agents of Shield would be an example of that) and need people to do things when they're in their established role.

Maybe you could split direct contact into passive (where the hero is the one standing up against the villain and only eventually does the villain react, especially if they already know them - Hamlet vs Claudius, for example) and aggressive (where the villain comes and makes the heroes life a misery - whether targeted against them specifically or more generally against the population), but otherwise, I think you've pretty much covered the types.

goto124
2016-03-11, 08:06 AM
Note: Metal Gear is a video game. I don't know if there are any scenes where the villain walks in, talks to the protagonist and leaves, but in a TTRPG the players will be wondering why they can't kill the villain.

Have the villain not meet them physically. Have phone calls or lower-down assistants, but no physical meetings.

johnbragg
2016-03-11, 10:53 AM
In the campaign I'm running for my kids, the next Big Problem (now that they're about to hit level 2) is a goblin invasion. Suddenly, there are a ton of Goblins in the woods. (They've already encountered some.)

The phase after that, is the reason there's a goblin invasion. The vaguely stable chiefdom has been overthrown by a goblin necromancer lord, and the tribe is scattering in all directions, including "towards the PC's home base." I'm not sure if my kids will think of the idea of recruiting the goblins they're fighting to team up against the necromancer. Or just murderhobo their way through the goblins, level up a couple of times, and then take on the Necromancer themselves.

Storm_Of_Snow
2016-03-11, 12:01 PM
Note: Metal Gear is a video game. I don't know if there are any scenes where the villain walks in, talks to the protagonist and leaves, but in a TTRPG the players will be wondering why they can't kill the villain.

Have the villain not meet them physically. Have phone calls or lower-down assistants, but no physical meetings.
You could always pull a Highlander - no fighting on holy ground.

Or an Adam West-era Batman villain, put the PCs in a deathtrap, have the villain show up to gloat, then leave - either before the PCs escape or as a direct result of them doing so. If it's layers of villains, have one or more of their subordinates stop the PCs attacks, meaning the PCs have to take them out first - maybe have one of the subordinates taken out in that fight so they get some feeling of success, plus a second or they cause some physical harm or over expenditure of resources to the BBEG if they're especially clever about it.

But why would the BBEG want to talk with the PCs in the first place? Solve that and the how, why and where is nearly immaterial.

OldTrees1
2016-03-11, 12:30 PM
I tend to the sandbox extreme, and deal with rather unpredictable players. As a result I don't plan my campaigns around BBEGs. Rather I place challenging NPCs in the world complete with their own support structures and allies. When the players decide to transform one of these into a BBEG, I am not invested in how long the BBEG survives. The BBEG starts some distance away but the PCs can readily cross that distance so it is not "BBEG at a Distance" per say. The players then decide how best to oppose and the BBEG reacts to such opposition based upon personality and information gap. Usually the players do not consider it a victory until both the BBEG and their ripples (organization, consequences of BBEG actions, ...) are dealt with.

I also tend to have the BBEGs share this trait: They think they are the protagonist of their own story and initially consider the PCs as insignificant/unrelated to the story or as part of the tactical terrain to be used for an advantage. Only through PC action would the BBEG think to consider the PCs as the antagonist of the BBEG's story.

Douche
2016-03-11, 12:39 PM
Play Metal Gear. In those games, it is common that the big bad does have contact with the protagonist during the game. You know, talking, taunting, interrogating, the hero observing the big bad at distance, a fight that is interrupted almost immediately, foreshadowing, background information via other sources and oh yes, a psychological need to hold a monologue about their evil plans. At first the big bad has no desire to fight the protagonist, while the hero does but can't realize that yet and the final confrontation is indeed final, ie. at the very end of the game.

And why do they do that? Why don't they just shoot Solid Snake at the start of the game when he scuba-dives at the enemy base? The actual reasons vary from game to game but the big bads always have some angle they are playing. That and the usual tendency to underestimate the lone protagonist and his support staff. They wouldn't be playing with them like if they didn't underestimate the hero. In short, they have a plan and according to that, the hero isn't supposed to die yet because he still has some use.

And why can't the hero just shoot the big bad when he makes an appearence, strutting around like an evil genius? Because the big bad wouldn't be much of a big bad if that was possible. At the beginning of the story the big bad holds all cards, all the advantages, a position of power. It's the hero's job to overcome all that during the story. It is at the end of the story, after the hero has cleared his way through the mooks, bested the lieutenants and the whole enemy base is exploding around them, when the hero and the villain fight it off, in a battle that will be the culmination of the whole story.

Edit: Of course, this all assumes that the big bad is the scheming type. If your villain is the spitting image of an aspiring khornate warlord who's modus operandi is to kill everyone on their sight because they want all the blood and skulls they can get, they probably have no reason to keep the heroes alive.

Actually the bad guys don't kill Snake cuz they are all manipulating him, in every game.
MGS: Liquid uses him to activate Metal Gear, and Ocelot (we later learn) is the one pulling all the strings, he wants Snake to win. Liquid also wants to prove he is genetically superior so he wants to stage epic showdowns, instead of just killing you or whatever.
MGS2: It's all a simulation! Plus, Ocelot is once again the one pulling the strings and you did everything he wanted
MGS3: The Boss is helping you not die. At one point, the real Big Bad is about to kill you and The Boss stops it
MGS4: Once again, Ocelot has manipulated you through unprecedented levels of implausible complexity to help him save the world, cuz he was the good guy all along
MGSV: sucks. No one cares. There isn't even a BBEG. The guy you think is the BBEG dies halfway through the game.

Raimun
2016-03-12, 09:47 AM
Note: Metal Gear is a video game. I don't know if there are any scenes where the villain walks in, talks to the protagonist and leaves, but in a TTRPG the players will be wondering why they can't kill the villain.

Have the villain not meet them physically. Have phone calls or lower-down assistants, but no physical meetings.

Heh, I'm not saying the GM should just go to a cutscene-mode. I'm saying that a big bad worth his salt has a legitimate reason/way to hold a grandstanding villainous monologue at their leisure. Why? Because they hold advantages (at the moment) over the hero. In modern day/realistic setting The Bad Guy in Business Suit can do that with merely possessing a gun when the hero doesn't. In a fantasy setting, with high level action, the equivalent of The Bad Guy in Business Suit can't just hold a crossbow at heroes and expect it to work. However, The Dark Lord, leader of the Empire of Dooooom has certainly other, more powerful ways to hold his villainous monologue if he damn well pleases. Be creative. The hero is not merely a Cowboy Cop and the villain is not merely a Corrupt Businessman.


Actually the bad guys don't kill Snake cuz they are all manipulating him, in every game.
MGS: Liquid uses him to activate Metal Gear, and Ocelot (we later learn) is the one pulling all the strings, he wants Snake to win. Liquid also wants to prove he is genetically superior so he wants to stage epic showdowns, instead of just killing you or whatever.
MGS2: It's all a simulation! Plus, Ocelot is once again the one pulling the strings and you did everything he wanted
MGS3: The Boss is helping you not die. At one point, the real Big Bad is about to kill you and The Boss stops it
MGS4: Once again, Ocelot has manipulated you through unprecedented levels of implausible complexity to help him save the world, cuz he was the good guy all along
MGSV: sucks. No one cares. There isn't even a BBEG. The guy you think is the BBEG dies halfway through the game.

Yes, that's what I said. They are playing an angle. However I just have reply to every individual game in detail.


MGS : Yeah, that's Liquid playing an angle.

MGS2: Simulation? Okay, in that sense that it's all orchestrated in order to recreate conditions similar to those of Shadow Moses. However... the whole game is not a VR simulation. Not sure if you meant that but that particular fan theory always irks me. Anyway, the whole thing required Raiden to complete the exercise, ie. senseless waste of human life. Also, Solidus wanted originally to kill the intruder (Raiden) but not before using him to smoke out the Patriot spy among his ranks.

MGS3: Yeah, The Boss is playing an angle. She wants Snake to succeed, so that both of them can complete their missions... and because she wants him to be her successor. However, Volgin wants to kill Snake but only after he can torture him.

MGS4: Ocelot? The good guy...? Hahhahhaaa! Oh, sorry. Ocelot wanted the world to be free... like the wild west was free. The whole world as wild west, with constant warfare and fighting. That's not really a noble goal, especially when you consider what Ocelot did when trying to achieve that. Also, Ocelot didn't want you to succeed. He did want to fight with Snake, so that he could fool the Patriots to believe that Liquid had possessed him, which also made him more unpredictable because that would also mean they thought they are fighting Liquid, not Ocelot. Anyway, if Snake had died during the events of MGS4, Ocelot would be sad because he didn't get to fight him but ultimately, that wouldn't have ruined his plans.

MGSV: Skull Face wasn't playing an angle that required Snake to live (at least for a while). He just wanted to kill Snake. However, he was a megalomaniac and liked to grandstand, even when he tried to kill someone.

sktarq
2016-03-12, 01:30 PM
Personally I tend to similarities to OldTrees but others I have seen used include:

Nemesis Agent: The BBEG has people who do work for him/her/it. These are generally other adventurerers with PC levels and plenty of magic items. They clash with the pc's several times-often as local BBEG's themselves and enjoy a plot protection of +2 on their saving throws they can be killed. Between adventures that have them clash with the PC's they do very well and gain levels and rank in the actual BBEG's organization-eventually supplanting him in importance to plot and players emotional payoff.

BBEG being unreachable by relative power. If the BBEG can reform if killed, as tons of magic boosting equipment, or is immune to non-vorpal weapons then they can interact with the PC's just fine until the PC's unlock her/her/its weakness that allows for a winnable battle.

BBEG protected by alias. A variant on the unknown BBEG under an alias they interact with the PC's as the BBEG but can hide under their true identity.

More options depend on what kind of interactions you want the PC's to have with the BBEG outside the final battle.

Airk
2016-03-14, 01:34 PM
You could always pull a Highlander - no fighting on holy ground.


This was always a questionable solution. "Well, nice chat in the church bro, I'll be waiting for you outside."

That said, you're really looking at the problem the wrong way. You shouldn't need to metaplan this sort of thing. You just need to think about it from the perspective of the "villain". He probably has better things to do that bother some random adventurers personally, and, what's more, if combat is remotely dangerous in your world, why would he want to put himself in a position where they could stab him? Doesn't he have disposable minions for that?

The bad guy should be out there enacting his evil plan. If the PCs can figure out what his evil plan is and where he'll need to go to implement it, and WHEN, they may be able to force a confrontation, but otherwise? Pff. And note: This doesn't fit into ANY of the scenarios laid out in the OP - the PCs know who the villain is, and he's not holed up behind some sort of invulnerable barrier, they just don't know how to find him. And yes, I suppose at higher levels in D&D-like game, they could scry. But any villain who can be located by scrying is a chump who hasn't been thinking about ways people could interfere with him. Which can be fine. But shouldn't be the default.

Storm_Of_Snow
2016-03-15, 03:52 AM
This was always a questionable solution. "Well, nice chat in the church bro, I'll be waiting for you outside."

Which is why, in the series at least, one of them never left holy ground. :smallwink:



That said, you're really looking at the problem the wrong way. You shouldn't need to metaplan this sort of thing. You just need to think about it from the perspective of the "villain". He probably has better things to do that bother some random adventurers personally, and, what's more, if combat is remotely dangerous in your world, why would he want to put himself in a position where they could stab him? Doesn't he have disposable minions for that?

The bad guy should be out there enacting his evil plan. If the PCs can figure out what his evil plan is and where he'll need to go to implement it, and WHEN, they may be able to force a confrontation, but otherwise? Pff. And note: This doesn't fit into ANY of the scenarios laid out in the OP - the PCs know who the villain is, and he's not holed up behind some sort of invulnerable barrier, they just don't know how to find him. And yes, I suppose at higher levels in D&D-like game, they could scry. But any villain who can be located by scrying is a chump who hasn't been thinking about ways people could interfere with him. Which can be fine. But shouldn't be the default.
Agreed for the most part, which is why I asked why the villain would want to talk with them. Maybe they're a significant threat and he's trying to deflect them, maybe they're friends/family and he's trying to warn them off, maybe he expects them to react in a certain way, which helps further his plans.

Lacco
2016-03-15, 04:21 AM
This was always a questionable solution. "Well, nice chat in the church bro, I'll be waiting for you outside."

The real BBEG (emphasis on the "Bad Evil") would in my book retort:
Yes, yes, no problem. I'll just pray a bit and you can kill me in a minute. By the way, did you notice that your mage's tower is on fire? Damn, must be bad for all the people inside... someone should help them... and I think your family has been kidnapped and oh - I was supposed to tell you that the guy will kill them exactly in 5 minutes...and it will take you at least 4 minutes 55 seconds to get to his place...and don't mind all those guys upstairs, with the bows - they just work for me. Did I tell you that I have a spell on me which will stop your wife's heart if I die...? Don't worry about me, I know my way out. And remember, you can always find me in my apartment... ta.

Gnorman
2016-03-15, 05:19 AM
And this is why you never create a backstory for your character where they are married or have a family, or for that matter care about pesky little things like "collateral damage" or "innocent people burning to death."

Lacco
2016-03-15, 06:53 AM
And this is why you never create a backstory for your character where they are married or have a family, or for that matter care about pesky little things like "collateral damage" or "innocent people burning to death."

Au contraire, dear sir! THAT is exactly why you create such a backstory! I must say that it makes for so much more interesting stories...

...however, if that was sarcasm, a toast to you :smallsmile:

napoleon_in_rag
2016-03-15, 07:23 AM
A BBEG leads to railroading. Which is fine if that is what the players want.

goto124
2016-03-15, 08:22 AM
And this is why you never create a backstory for your character where they are married or have a family, or for that matter care about pesky little things like "collateral damage" or "innocent people burning to death."

Good adventurers wait till a horde of orcs burn their families and hometown down before going on adventures.

Impatient adventurers burn their families and hometown down before going on adventures!

Storm_Of_Snow
2016-03-15, 09:39 AM
Good adventurers wait till a horde of orcs burn their families and hometown down before going on adventures.

Impatient adventurers burn their families and hometown down before going on adventures!
I thought it was more the case that future BBEG's burn their families and hometown down before going on adventures.

Impatient adventurers merely do something to provoke a horde of Orcs into burning down their families and hometowns before going on adventures.

MrStabby
2016-03-15, 10:16 AM
A BBEG leads to railroading. Which is fine if that is what the players want.


I don't agree with this. A BBEG is just an NPC, just a powerful and malevolent one. Like any NPC the PCs can ignore him and do something else. Of course that isn't to say it is in their characters interests, but a BBEG does not preclude the freedom.

Airk
2016-03-15, 10:27 AM
The real BBEG (emphasis on the "Bad Evil") would in my book retort:
Yes, yes, no problem. I'll just pray a bit and you can kill me in a minute. By the way, did you notice that your mage's tower is on fire? Damn, must be bad for all the people inside... someone should help them... and I think your family has been kidnapped and oh - I was supposed to tell you that the guy will kill them exactly in 5 minutes...and it will take you at least 4 minutes 55 seconds to get to his place...and don't mind all those guys upstairs, with the bows - they just work for me. Did I tell you that I have a spell on me which will stop your wife's heart if I die...? Don't worry about me, I know my way out. And remember, you can always find me in my apartment... ta.

So why bother with the "Holy Ground" BS then? :P

sktarq
2016-03-15, 10:31 AM
BBEG's are a high railroading risk. While it is not automatic DM's desire to shape the PC/BBEG relationship can push things into dangerous spaces, as can the BBEG becoming a DMPC (in effect) and having plot armour of the gods. An NPC can fill the BBEG's role while not being an issue but creating an NPC as a BBEG will almost always cause serious railroading tension.

Hyooz
2016-03-15, 12:24 PM
Yes, antagonists do tend to lead to protagonists wanting to fight them. Shame that in these circles that's called "railroading."

Malistrae
2016-03-15, 06:36 PM
Personally, I too prefer the Sandboxing approach when I DM. I do have "villains" and at least one of them has a big, evil plan, but it is ultimately up to the PCs if they want a character to become a BBEG. In another words, instead of designating a BBEG before the campaign, my BBEG is organically grown by player interaction during the campaign. The primary reason for this is the first ever tabletop rpg I took part in as a player. It was a Vampire: the Masquerade game with a very lenient Storyteller, who instead of trying to "railroad" us into a preset story, mainly relied on player interactions with NPCs and each other to shape the plot. My Tremere character ultimately ended up as a pseudo-BBEG for the chronicle, since I have been slowly planning and preparing a violent coup d'etat against the city's prince (which would have later been blamed on a Sabbat attack) after I managed to manouver myself into becoming the regent of the local chantry. Unfortunately, the rest of my coterie decided they were loyal to the prince, and attempted to stop me and my NPC minions. It had... interesting results. While I successfully assassinated the prince (with most of the primogens dusted alongside him) and thrown the city's Camarilla Kindred into chaos, the coterie ultimately managed to defeat me in an epic confrontation. While I lost, it was a very satisfying resolution. This experience had a profound effect on me, and in all my future games whether as a player or a GM, I strived to recreate this sense of organic plot development.

Lacco
2016-03-16, 02:38 AM
So why bother with the "Holy Ground" BS then? :P

I dunno... roleplaying?

Never wanted to exchange witty banter and some veiled threats with a BBEG while being safe at the moment?

Never wanted to insult him several times to make him target you specifically, to make him leave his master plan and make mistakes?

Never wanted to feel the hatred for him because he threatened the imaginary family of your imaginary character, knowing you will have to make a hard decision and rush to save them, and then go and curbstomp the BBBEG for it?

...if not, then ok. I can understand that - your playstyle just differs. No problem with that. But everyone should give it a try at least once - if the "aaaaawwwww, the GM is railroading me and takes away my stuff!" changes to "ok, you BBEG. It's on now and you're going down!", it might work, your GM will love it and the character will be definitely more interesting than the standard power-mongering killing machine that collects shiny stuff :smallsmile:

johnbragg
2016-03-16, 05:20 AM
Yes, antagonists do tend to lead to protagonists wanting to fight them. Shame that in these circles that's called "railroading."

Well, in combat-centered games governed by dice, the first encounter between BBEG and party is likely to be the last encounter, a decisive and total victory for one side or the other.

The railroading comes in where the GM has to guide the story away from its mathematically natural conclusion of resolution-in-one-combat to the more satisfying story of a recurring antagonist.

Hyooz
2016-03-16, 01:31 PM
Well, in combat-centered games governed by dice, the first encounter between BBEG and party is likely to be the last encounter, a decisive and total victory for one side or the other.

The railroading comes in where the GM has to guide the story away from its mathematically natural conclusion of resolution-in-one-combat to the more satisfying story of a recurring antagonist.

Not necessarily, by any means, unless we're defining encounter and railroading incredibly broadly here.

Nerd-o-rama
2016-03-16, 01:43 PM
Well, in combat-centered games governed by dice, the first encounter between BBEG and party is likely to be the last encounter, a decisive and total victory for one side or the other.

The railroading comes in where the GM has to guide the story away from its mathematically natural conclusion of resolution-in-one-combat to the more satisfying story of a recurring antagonist.

That's only if you assume that both sides have the incentive and the means to fight to kill. The attitude that leads to the conflict central to this threads is the idea that no one in an RPG world does anything but fight to the death when they have a conflict to resolve.

To add to the OP (which I think is a good breakdown even if I don't totally agree with the premise), there's the Untouchable villain: one who directly acts and interacts with the players but has some for of protection (social or legal standing is a good one because things like magic and divine protection come off as Gary Stu traits to people who don't read a lot of mythology) that means that fighting and killing them directly and immediately will - incredibly obviously - cause more trouble than it's worth, even if the GM doesn't "cheat" by making the BBEG impossibly high leveled or just deus ex machina-ing away any encounters.

An example of this would be Lex Luthor in the first season of the Superman animated series (and the comic book plots that were running concurrently to this). Lex Luthor couldn't be a more obvious villain if you tattooed "Bad Guy" in giant red letters on his bald head. Superman knows he's the cause of a lot of Metropolis's problems and, being Superman, could turn him into a bloody smear on the pavement in about half a second, at least the 25% of the time Lex doesn't happen to have kryptonite handy. Superman does not do this both because you can't just murder a prominent politically-connected businessman without consequences, and also Superman believed life was worth preserving in a general sense back then. Given the ravenously murderous nature of most D&D player characters, the first one is more likely to be an effective incentive to hold off and play smart by disassembling the villain's plans and exposing him to justice (or if you did go the magical protection route, figuring out the Prophesied Off Switch for his protection).

sktarq
2016-03-16, 09:21 PM
Yes, antagonists do tend to lead to protagonists wanting to fight them. Shame that in these circles that's called "railroading."

The key there is "wanting". If the players want to fight them especially several times via proxies, and whatnot (usually what separates a BBEG vs a Villainous NPC) then its fine. But it has to be the players driving that. BBEG's can bring out the overuse of guidance tools that the DM has. It is when the BBEG becomes the DM's project, instead of the player's, that problems occur. If players don't want to deal with BBEG the way the DM does it becomes very easy for the DM to drive the story. Also because BBEG are often supposed to be repeat encounters the DM often puts limitations on risk and/or tries push a specific kind of outcome. . . and that leads to DM's railroading their players.

JoeJ
2016-03-17, 12:29 AM
Most games that I know have at least one way that the BBEG can hold a conversation with the PCs without being physically present. One example in 5e is the Project Image spell. In games set in the modern era, they can obviously use a phone. However they manage it, that allows for all the taunting, posturing, veiled and/or unveiled threats, lies, recruitment attempts, or whatever, that anybody could want.

Airk
2016-03-17, 11:20 AM
I dunno... roleplaying?

Never wanted to exchange witty banter and some veiled threats with a BBEG while being safe at the moment?

Never wanted to insult him several times to make him target you specifically, to make him leave his master plan and make mistakes?

Never wanted to feel the hatred for him because he threatened the imaginary family of your imaginary character, knowing you will have to make a hard decision and rush to save them, and then go and curbstomp the BBBEG for it?

...if not, then ok. I can understand that - your playstyle just differs. No problem with that. But everyone should give it a try at least once - if the "aaaaawwwww, the GM is railroading me and takes away my stuff!" changes to "ok, you BBEG. It's on now and you're going down!", it might work, your GM will love it and the character will be definitely more interesting than the standard power-mongering killing machine that collects shiny stuff :smallsmile:

You missed the point entirely, and good job trying to slander me for it.

The point is, if the villain has 14 layers of plans to keep you from killing him before, after, or during a fireside chat, he doesn't need some silly "Oh, we can't fight on holy ground" taboo to have a chat with you. The "holy ground" thing is unnecessary in that situation.

But sure, attack me as if I'm saying "Badguys should never talk to the PCs", that's totally helpful, thanks.

Lacco
2016-03-17, 11:33 AM
You missed the point entirely, and good job trying to slander me for it.

The point is, if the villain has 14 layers of plans to keep you from killing him before, after, or during a fireside chat, he doesn't need some silly "Oh, we can't fight on holy ground" taboo to have a chat with you. The "holy ground" thing is unnecessary in that situation.

But sure, attack me as if I'm saying "Badguys should never talk to the PCs", that's totally helpful, thanks.

I am sorry - I really misunderstood the question in the case.

And if what I wrote was understood as slander, I apologize - I may have projected my experiences on you, which was unfair and uncorrect.

The answer in this case would be - yes, the taboo is silly if the plans are laid, but if the BBEG counts that the PCs will obey it, he will use it for his advantage. But I think a competent BBEG will breach it and will have backup plans.