PDA

View Full Version : Only the GM enjoys dialogue during combat.



Talakeal
2019-01-15, 02:03 PM
Quick story:

In my game this weekend the PCs were fighting a lycanthrope who was trying to hide her nature, she fought them in human form but when she started to lose decided to shift. Before she changed she said something along the lines of "You guys are tougher than you look. I guess I don't have the luxury of holding back."

One of the players interrupted me half way through and said "Oh no, I hate it when villains monoglue. I attack her the second she opens her mouth." Keep in mind that this was during her turn after said PC had already taken his turn.

The next day I was talking to one of the other players about how wierd it is that the other guy considers two sentances a monologue and how ironic it is that the motor mouth PC he demands half the spotlight time for his PC apparently has a standing rule about never letting a villain speak.

My friend then told that nobody likes dialogue in combat. It is bad but tolerable when they are making an in combat quip during their turn, worse when they want to do a monologue before the fight, and worst of all if they have already lost but want to give a speech before they die. Regardless of context, if an NPC is talking during a fight only the DM is having fun.


Anyone else share this oppinion? He stated it as if it was a universal truth, and I am wondering if it really is a common viewpoint that I have never noticed before. Or is this just one hack and slash gamer talking for everyone? Thoughts?

Jophiel
2019-01-15, 02:06 PM
I wouldn't be bothered by what you said. I might think a whole speech was a bit cornball but, to be honest, I don't think I've ever had a GM attempt a true monologue (a full paragraph or more) prior to (or during) combat. But a sentence or two or a quip? Sure, why not.

Resileaf
2019-01-15, 02:23 PM
I think your players are just uptight. I bet you they also insist on attacking NPCs while they're talking.

RazorChain
2019-01-15, 02:35 PM
Actually the NPC's making quips during combat are those that the players often find most memorable. Like the guard that they fought the other day, just a normal red shirt guard, that managed to survive by making ridicilous defense rolls after losing his sword.....he always muttered "Not today, my friend, not today. This is not the day I die!" when he made his defense rolls.

I once had a player that disrupted the villains monologue resulting in TPK. The villain was going to gloat about is his doomsday device but as soon as he opened his mouth one payer was rude enough to exclaim "When he opens his mouth I shoot him in the face!"

I totally allowed him to shoot the villain in the face and after the resulting battle I just let the clock tick down and shouted "KAAABOOOOOOM!!!!! You all die"

Knaight
2019-01-15, 02:45 PM
This largely seems like a genre thing - in most genres there wouldn't necessarily be much (the occasional yell for help, something like "they're over there", etc.), but if I were running a superhero campaign? At that point there's pretty much an implicit agreement that everyone is going to be downright garrulous.

War_lord
2019-01-15, 02:48 PM
I just think it's daft and hammy. People don't chatter away during fights to the death. And they certainly don't monologue out loud like anime villains. Unless you're going for absurdism, don't monologue during combat.


I once had a player that disrupted the villains monologue resulting in TPK. The villain was going to gloat about is his doomsday device but as soon as he opened his mouth one payer was rude enough to exclaim "When he opens his mouth I shoot him in the face!"

I totally allowed him to shoot the villain in the face and after the resulting battle I just let the clock tick down and shouted "KAAABOOOOOOM!!!!! You all die"

You're sort of proving the premise that only GMs enjoy these tedious speeches.

JeenLeen
2019-01-15, 02:58 PM
I like in-combat talk and think it adds to the game. That's as a player and GM, and those I play with seem to think the same.
That said, I can see someone being a little annoyed if it breaks versimilitude for them.

However, attacking during your example seems uncalled for and (if D&D) mechanically unsound. D&D allows for small 'free action' talking.

On the other hand, I do think it's cool to try to do a surprise attack in the middle of an actual gloat or monologue, though. But your example certainly doesn't qualify as that. (Maybe, if the DM felt generous, allow an Attack of Opportunity for them being distracted for a long-ish quip, but that didn't seem overly long.)

edit reply to post made while I made mine

I just think it's daft and hammy. People don't chatter away during fights to the death. And they certainly don't monologue out loud like anime villains. Unless you're going for absurdism, don't monologue during combat.

I think talking during combat can be a neat way to highlight the PCs' power. In one high-power game I'm in, the fact that my guy casually chats as he slaughters enemies seems to add humor for me and the GM. And it seems in-the-right-style for most fantasy games.

I would agree, if you want gritty realism (and nothing wrong with wanting that), talking during combat isn't realistic and could detract.

Resileaf
2019-01-15, 03:04 PM
I just think it's daft and hammy. People don't chatter away during fights to the death. And they certainly don't monologue out loud like anime villains. Unless you're going for absurdism, don't monologue during combat.


What about warcries? Surely you can't tell me that a villain screaming "IN THE NAME OF [insert Dark God name here], I SHALL BATHE IN YOUR ENTRAILS TONIGHT!" is unrealistic.

War_lord
2019-01-15, 03:06 PM
I think talking during combat can be a neat way to highlight the PCs' power. In one high-power game I'm in, the fact that my guy casually chats as he slaughters enemies seems to add humor for me and the GM. And it seems in-the-right-style for most fantasy games.

I would agree, if you want gritty realism (and nothing wrong with wanting that), talking during combat isn't realistic and could detract.

I'm more addressing DMs who will get annoyed/TPK the party via BS if the players do anything other then passively indulge their fantasy of being a Shakespearean actor. Quips are fine so long as they fit into D&D's 6 second round. It's less of a problem in GURPS because I can just point out to them that their turn is one second.

RazorChain
2019-01-15, 03:06 PM
I just think it's daft and hammy. People don't chatter away during fights to the death. And they certainly don't monologue out loud like anime villains. Unless you're going for absurdism, don't monologue during combat.



You're sort of proving the premise that only GMs enjoy these tedious speeches.

No I'm only proving that one player didn't like the bad guy gloating. Most of the time my players actually enjoy having a little chit chat with the villains


Funny, you should read the Icelandic Sagas. Big burly viking guys beating each other up....and those sure talked during combat.

War_lord
2019-01-15, 03:25 PM
No I'm only proving that one player didn't like the bad guy gloating. Most of the time my players actually enjoy having a little chit chat with the villains

The one time somebody objected you TPK'd the whole group. The fact that you threw a massive tantrum the one time someone did something tells me they might not actually enjoy it. Maybe they just don't want to deal with the fallout of calling you an insufferable windbag who keeps boring the tits off them with overlong speeches they get smacked for ignoring.


Funny, you should read the Icelandic Sagas. Big burly viking guys beating each other up....and those sure talked during combat.

The Saga of Grettir the Strong is one of my favorite books. Aside from this hardly being true except in exceptional cases, I doubt you break into poetry at random points in the game, despite that also being common in the Sagas. Something that makes for a great book doesn't normally translate to a good game. And a good GM leaves any ego they might have at the door, don't disrespect your players time. Posing as an author or actor is disrespecting their time.

Talakeal
2019-01-15, 03:32 PM
The one time somebody objected you TPK'd the whole group. The fact that you threw a massive tantrum the one time someone did something tells me they might not actually enjoy it. Maybe they just don't want to deal with the fallout of calling you an insufferable windbag who keeps boring the tits off them with overlong speeches they get smacked for ignoring.



The Saga of Grettir the Strong is one of my favorite books. Aside from this hardly being true except in exceptional cases, I doubt you break into poetry at random points in the game, despite that also being common in the Sagas. Something that makes for a great book doesn't normally translate to a good game. And a good GM leaves any ego they might have at the door, don't disrespect your players time.

IMO attacking someone while they are talking is just stupid. Unless you have a very good reason (they are just stalling for time or they completely let their guard down) you are throwing away what could be vital information, and from a realism perspective it gives you a chance to catch your brea while the villain is literally wasting theirs.

From a realism perspective a villain explaining his evil plan to the heroes is a pretty irrational villain, but then again sane people tend not to become super villains. Imo the PCs shooting said villain while he is explaining his plot are just giving the middle finger to the DM, and at that point I can see the GM simply letting the situation play out naturally as the PCs are now missing a vital clue.

War_lord
2019-01-15, 03:35 PM
IMO attacking someone while they are talking is just stupid.

If you know that they're a murderer, and they plan to attack you in the very near future, the smart thing to do is to kill that person before they can kill you. When you are in a life or death situation, your body makes a bunch of drastic chemistry changes to get you ready to respond. One of the results of that is that you're not going to be making any dramatic speeches. Even in a non-life threatening situation, most fist fights start with a sucker punch (maybe some posturing beforehand) not a soliloquy about how good one is at punching. That's a device of dramatic fiction. And it's in your players rights to care about winning fights, particularly if they aren't playing honor obsessed characters.

EDIT: And a GM seeing any player interaction with the game as a "middle finger to the DM" is bad GMing. You need to be impartial. If your players don't like chatter, don't punish them, stop chattering.

JoeJ
2019-01-15, 03:42 PM
As a general statement, your friend is definitely wrong. For some players, the dialog makes the fight more interesting (which in some games, like D&D ,is badly needed because the fight itself is usually pretty boring). The real question, though, is not what players in general like, but what those particular players at your table like. And the best way to learn that is to ask them.

Talakeal
2019-01-15, 03:54 PM
If you know that they're a murderer, and they plan to attack you in the very near future, the smart thing to do is to kill that person before they can kill you. When you are in a life or death situation, your body makes a bunch of drastic chemistry changes to get you ready to respond. One of the results of that is that you're not going to be making any dramatic speeches. Even in a non-life threatening situation, most fist fights start with a sucker punch (maybe some posturing beforehand) not a soliloquy about how good one is at punching. That's a device of dramatic fiction. And it's in your players rights to care about winning fights, particularly if they aren't playing honor obsessed characters.

EDIT: And a GM seeing any player interaction with the game as a "middle finger to the DM" is bad GMing. You need to be impartial. If your players don't like chatter, don't punish them, stop chattering.



Are we assuming this conversation is happening with weapons drawn at point blank range? Because Otherwise I disagree that a "sucker punch" is going to be a vital tactics.

As for your edit, would you feel also feel that if one were hosting a dinner party and one of the guests took one bite, pushed the food away and said "This isnt any good," and whipped out their phone to call for pizza delivery, only a bad host would view that as rude behavior?

The DM isn't just a slave to their players, they put a lot of effort into their games and and are also entitled to enjoy themselves just as much as any other player at the table.

It feels refreshing to be defending DMs again, it seems like the last year I have been arguing for nothing but player empowerment and against the notion of all powerful masters of the game. :smallbiggrin:

Max_Killjoy
2019-01-15, 03:55 PM
Quick story:

In my game this weekend the PCs were fighting a lycanthrope who was trying to hide her nature, she fought them in human form but when she started to lose decided to shift. Before she changed she said something along the lines of "You guys are tougher than you look. I guess I don't have the luxury of holding back."

One of the players interrupted me half way through and said "Oh no, I hate it when villains monoglue. I attack her the second she opens her mouth." Keep in mind that this was during her turn after said PC had already taken his turn.

The next day I was talking to one of the other players about how wierd it is that the other guy considers two sentances a monologue and how ironic it is that the motor mouth PC he demands half the spotlight time for his PC apparently has a standing rule about never letting a villain speak.

My friend then told that nobody likes dialogue in combat. It is bad but tolerable when they are making an in combat quip during their turn, worse when they want to do a monologue before the fight, and worst of all if they have already lost but want to give a speech before they die. Regardless of context, if an NPC is talking during a fight only the DM is having fun.


Anyone else share this oppinion? He stated it as if it was a universal truth, and I am wondering if it really is a common viewpoint that I have never noticed before. Or is this just one hack and slash gamer talking for everyone? Thoughts?

I wonder what would happen if the motormouth PC was attacked mid-sentence every time they opened their mouth in combat.

Talakeal
2019-01-15, 03:56 PM
I wonder what would happen if the motormouth PC was attacked mid-sentence every time they opened their mouth in combat.

Afaict he seems to think that combat is combat and RP is RP and never the twain shall meet. Although in truth I suspect it ir probably just because he is looking for an excuse to be an attention whore.

Kaptin Keen
2019-01-15, 04:07 PM
Thoughts?

My thoughts? I'd tell them "You get to have fun - I get to have fun."

And that would be that. Everyone at the table get's to play the game - no one is there just to cater to the others.

Maelynn
2019-01-15, 04:32 PM
I would delicately point out that it's not their turn, so they can't do anything 'as soon as she opens her mouth'. Then I'd proceed to finish what I was going to say. And after that, during their own turn, they can decide to use it however they wish. Because that's what their turn is for.

While I concur that not every player appreciates combat banter, it's absolutely not something that 'nobody likes'. Had you given an entire monologue then yes, I can understand, but two sentences is by no means the monologue they make it out to be.

War_lord
2019-01-15, 04:32 PM
As for your edit, would you feel also feel that if one were hosting a dinner party and one of the guests took one bite, pushed the food away and said "This isnt any good," and whipped out their phone to call for pizza delivery, only a bad host would view that as rude behavior?

The DM isn't just a slave to their players, they put a lot of effort into their games and and are also entitled to enjoy themselves just as much as any other player at the table.

There's at least four players and one GM, it behoves me to actually listen to my players. The first thing I ask after every session is what can I do better next time, what did they like and what did they not like. (didn't you witness this before you vanished?) Even so, if I get the sense that my players didn't like something, even if they didn't say anything verbally, I change things for next time. I'm entertained by them being entertained.

If they told you they hated the potatoes, why insist on serving the potatoes, do you just like being obstinate?

Then again, even outside of gaming I'm the kind of person who is very fortright about my opinions, and expects the same back in return. If a player, I'll tell the GM the game sucks, if a GM, I'll listen to someone when they tell me the game sucks.


I would delicately point out that it's not their turn, so they can't do anything 'as soon as she opens her mouth'. Then I'd proceed to finish what I was going to say. And after that, during their own turn, they can decide to use it however they wish. Because that's what their turn is for.

To which I'd respond that they just talked for over six seconds, while moving back and forth thus they spent their actions.

Thrudd
2019-01-15, 04:33 PM
If the dialogue fits within the time constraints of a normal combat turn, I don't know why anyone would complain. As long as it isn't like you're pausing the action to give a monologue - you're just making a quip as you roll the dice - the players are just overreacting. They must be traumatized by a previous GM that monologued in an immersion-breaking way. Saying "grr, you guys are tough" as you make an attack is not unbelievable or pausing the action. People don't always remain silent during combat, there is shouting and yelling, trash talking/intimidation and people trying to communicate with their allies. There's no reason not to portray that as long as the action is still flowing quickly.

zlefin
2019-01-15, 04:34 PM
I have no problem with dialog during combat, and I'd probably moderately enjoy it on average. (subject of course to genre expectations and the level of grittiness being used).

i'd say the DM is entitled to do short quips if they enjoy it ofc, since they're doing thje work, and short quips are something that happens alot anyways.

Maelynn
2019-01-15, 04:48 PM
To which I'd respond that they just talked for over six seconds, while moving back and forth thus they spent their actions.

Well, of course there's no way for me to know how slow you talk, but I don't need over 6 seconds to utter the 2 lines the OP stated.

JoeJ
2019-01-15, 04:51 PM
To which I'd respond that they just talked for over six seconds, while moving back and forth thus they spent their actions.

And their reply is, "The DM decides how long things take. I'll let you know when it's your turn again."

War_lord
2019-01-15, 04:54 PM
Well, of course there's no way for me to know how slow you talk, but I don't need over 6 seconds to utter the 2 lines the OP stated.

Sure, if you assume everyone else is literally frozen in place for six seconds waiting for their "go" and not dueling back and forth.

War_lord
2019-01-15, 04:59 PM
And their reply is, "The DM decides how long things take. I'll let you know when it's your turn again."

"A round represents about six seconds in the game world" -PHB, 189

So no, you can't justify a monologue in combat as anything other then a GM attitude problem.

JoeJ
2019-01-15, 05:06 PM
"A round represents about six seconds in the game world" -PHB, 189

So no, you can't justify a monologue in combat as anything other then a GM attitude problem.

Six seconds is more than enough time for a brief statement. And arguing with the GM during combat is not being respectful to the other players. The GM made a decision, the game continues. Further discussion should be tabled until after the game.

I get that you don't like NPCs to talk in the middle of combat, but you're not the only player at the table.

War_lord
2019-01-15, 05:12 PM
Six seconds is more than enough time for a brief statement. And arguing with the GM during combat is not being respectful to the other players. The GM made a decision, the game continues. Further discussion should be tabled until after the game.

I get that you don't like NPCs to talk in the middle of combat, but you're not the only player at the table.

The first time it happens, I confront them after the game. If they don't agree to cut it out, or it slips in again after they do, I'm out. That's my rule for dealing with this kind of stuff.

Mr Beer
2019-01-15, 05:13 PM
I find a long speech insufferable but a short speech is fine and expected from a lot of BBEGs. Also in combat quips are fine, from enemies and PCs.

My games, powerful enemies generally explicitly have the power to make a short speech pre combat, which the players cannot interrupt. The players also have the same power, should they wish to exercise it.

icefractal
2019-01-15, 05:43 PM
Personally, I like some banter in combat, and so do a number of other gamers I know.

But aside from that, telling the GM how they're allowed to RP the NPCs is about as acceptable as the GM dictating how PCs can be RPed - it almost never is.

And most people who complain about too much talking for six seconds shouldn't throw stones. It's a rare player who never takes more than six seconds discussing tactics.

Xuc Xac
2019-01-15, 05:52 PM
"A round represents about six seconds in the game world" -PHB, 189

So no, you can't justify a monologue in combat as anything other then a GM attitude problem.

Is that the same PHB that says talking doesn't take up your action?

JoeJ
2019-01-15, 06:13 PM
The first time it happens, I confront them after the game. If they don't agree to cut it out, or it slips in again after they do, I'm out. That's my rule for dealing with this kind of stuff.

That's fine. If having NPCs make comments during combat interferes that much with your enjoyment of the game, then you definitely shouldn't play with people who like it.

KillianHawkeye
2019-01-15, 06:22 PM
Afaict he seems to think that combat is combat and RP is RP and never the twain shall meet.

I disagree with your player 1000000%.

There is no reason to not RP during the combat phase of the game, whether that's dialogue between PCs or between a PC and an NPC or even just weighing your combat options based on in-character reasoning rather than whatever is most tactically efficient.

Personally, I often have characters speak during combat both as a player and as the DM. Then again, I suppose I've played a couple characters in the past that would just as soon shoot the villain than talk to them, but that's more a case of the villain being an overbearing ass combined with a character who's a bit of a loose cannon. But really, if it's from an in-character justification, is that not also a form of roleplaying?

Neknoh
2019-01-15, 06:23 PM
Honestly? As a DM?

It does feel kinda cringey when the villains try to drop one-liners that doesn't land, or try to speak, it breaks the flow. We are there to give the players a good time and help them tell their story, which is why it's more okay when the players are talking, taking focus and staying in character, than when you, the DM, who's pretty much constantly in focus, pauses combat to say something you might think is cool but you have no idea of knowing if the players think the same way until after you've said it.

It often sounds too much like a poorly voiced video games as soon as lines are longer than a few words.

Compare this to the way that both Chris Perkins and Matthew Mercer does villains during combat, they will "speak" as in they will utter a word or three, and that will almost always be that, the villains are still memorable because the encounters and other ways of characterization tends to be.

Compare your line of "you guys are tougher than I expected, I guess I can go all out." which sounds much more like something an anime hero or villain would say, than her growling "FINE!" and changing, sure, the second one doesn't give her so much of a cocksure way of being, however, it still conveys that she was holding back and did not want to use it ("I did not want to use this." is a dreadful line unless you have something REALLY good up your sleeve after, however, it is also very short).

Also remember that the six seconds is six seconds of everything on the battlefield happening at once, a "round" of combat is six seconds, a turn takes place at the same time as all other turns within this round.

JoeJ
2019-01-15, 06:30 PM
I disagree with your player 1000000%.

There is no reason to not RP during the combat phase of the game, whether that's dialogue between PCs or between a PC and an NPC or even just weighing your combat options based on in-character reasoning rather than whatever is most tactically efficient.

"You are using Bonetti's defense against me, eh?"
"I thought it fitting, considering the rocky terrain."

War_lord
2019-01-15, 06:55 PM
Honestly? As a DM?

It does feel kinda cringey when the villains try to drop one-liners that doesn't land, or try to speak, it breaks the flow. We are there to give the players a good time and help them tell their story, which is why it's more okay when the players are talking, taking focus and staying in character, than when you, the DM, who's pretty much constantly in focus, pauses combat to say something you might think is cool but you have no idea of knowing if the players think the same way until after you've said it.

Compare your line of "you guys are tougher than I expected, I guess I can go all out." which sounds much more like something an anime hero or villain would say,

And dubbed anime has the excuse of having to translate a Japanese sentence into English, while preserving the lip sync. It would just destroy my immersion if I'm hearing goofy anime/video game lines in a game that isn't trying for parody.

KillianHawkeye
2019-01-15, 06:58 PM
"You are using Bonetti's defense against me, eh?"
"I thought it fitting, considering the rocky terrain."

For example. :smallwink:

But really, in my view combat in a game serves two main purposes. The main one is to provide the primary challenge and pivotal excitement of the game as well as to reward the players with treasure and experience points.

But the second function, which is just as important, is to further the story in some way. Random encounters might not fulfill this usage, but most other fights should do so. And they can't do that if you take all the drama out of it.

The fight needs to be about something important, or the enemies need to have dreadful goals that must be stopped. Important information can be revealed in a fight. Decisions will be made. Fates determined.

If a character is charismatic, they should deliver taunts or quips or retorts, no matter if they are PC or NPC. Any character should curse or howl with rage if they find themselves losing a fight, or cry out with fear, or emote satisfaction or superiority if they are on the winning side. A character can try to reason with a foe that they would rather not be forced to fight against, even while exchanging blows.

It's important to remember that NPCs are characters, too. Let them have a voice when appropriate. Any fight that is meant to advance the story is a perfect scene to inject a little roleplaying.

Talakeal
2019-01-15, 07:23 PM
A few things:

1: Rounds are an abstraction. Six second rounds doubly so.
2: In real fights there are often long periods of inaction where people are catching their breath or circling around looking for an opening.
3: Cringe-worthy lines are equally cringe-worthy whether they are spoken in or out of combat, and don't really have a direct bearing on a discussion of dialogue in combat.

mAc Chaos
2019-01-15, 07:47 PM
These people sound bizarre, OP.

Darth Ultron
2019-01-15, 08:52 PM
Anyone else share this oppinion? He stated it as if it was a universal truth, and I am wondering if it really is a common viewpoint that I have never noticed before. Or is this just one hack and slash gamer talking for everyone? Thoughts?

Sure sounds like a typical hack and slash gamer.

My game has tons of dialogue. Dialogue is where the DM gets to talk, so I do that a lot.

And....well....a player that said they hated villain monologues would regret it quickly...Muuuhahahahaha.

icefractal
2019-01-15, 09:04 PM
We are there to give the players a good time and help them tell their story, which is why it's more okay when the players are talking, taking focus and staying in character, than when you, the DM, who's pretty much constantly in focus, pauses combat to say something you might think is cool but you have no idea of knowing if the players think the same way until after you've said it.I'd disagree. The GM is a player also, and needs to have fun too. A campaign where the GM is just doing it all for the players and not enjoying it themselves is a campaign that won't last long. Either because tension builds up and makes it implode, or simply because the GM burns out.

And while the GM is in-focus most of the time, a lot of that is simply describing things or resolving player actions - being an impartial interface isn't the same thing as getting to perform a bit.

Pauly
2019-01-16, 12:11 AM
If you know that they're a murderer, and they plan to attack you in the very near future, the smart thing to do is to kill that person before they can kill you. When you are in a life or death situation, your body makes a bunch of drastic chemistry changes to get you ready to respond. One of the results of that is that you're not going to be making any dramatic speeches. Even in a non-life threatening situation, most fist fights start with a sucker punch (maybe some posturing beforehand) not a soliloquy about how good one is at punching. That's a device of dramatic fiction. And it's in your players rights to care about winning fights, particularly if they aren't playing honor obsessed characters.

EDIT: And a GM seeing any player interaction with the game as a "middle finger to the DM" is bad GMing. You need to be impartial. If your players don't like chatter, don't punish them, stop chattering.

I disagree. Lots of real life fights and murders have dialogues.
Ranging from, but not limited to:
- Threats (I’m going to kill you)
- Attempts to talk down and de-escalate the conflict (put the gun down and let’s talk)
- Attempts to talk-up and escalate the conflict (who are you looking at?)
- A verbal disagreement leading to a physical disagreement (Well your team sucks)
- Interjections (WTF, why did you hit me?)
- Warnings (Look out he’s got a knife)

The idea of people determinedly and silently going about mayhem usually only occurs in pre-meditated situations. Most people will rather talk than initiate violence, which is why “I don’t want to fight” is what prefaces most sucker punches.

denthor
2019-01-16, 12:16 AM
I surrender is still okay?

Satinavian
2019-01-16, 02:44 AM
Afaict he seems to think that combat is combat and RP is RP and never the twain shall meet. Although in truth I suspect it ir probably just because he is looking for an excuse to be an attention whore.

Dramatic speeches in combat situation is a genre convention. It is not realistic at all.

And that means it is utterly inappropriate if you are not in a genre that has it or if you do play "combat as war".


There is a place for pre-combat speeches. Those happen either in a situation where combatants can't yet hurt each other or when it is not yet certain that combat will actually happen, even if everyone is prepared for it and showing that. Sometimes you have even cultural rules in place that make pre-combat speeches possible. Meeting for a last negotiation on the battlefield under a truce is not a strange thing.
But if the combat is actually about to start or already started ? Time for talk is over.


That does not mean that i let my characters/NPCs never talk during combat. But if i do, it is :

- Orders to people on the own side
- Giving warnings/pointing out important developments their comrades might not have noticed
- Coordinating/relaying tactics
- "I surrender"

I think the most hammy or clichee thing i would ever use is
- "Stop fighting ! This is all a big misunderstanding !"

But no quips (Those are for practice fights or tournaments) and certainly no villain monologues.

DMwithoutPC's
2019-01-16, 04:09 AM
First of I think that was very rude. Let DM's have their fun as well, and quipping as your villains is fun.

a true monologue probably goes to far, especially if they are not behind a forcefield or something to protect them for a prolonged period of time.

Any discussion about realism, and trying to determine how much can be said in the abstraction of a "round" or the "6 seconds" is not very usefull to me. If you start thinking like that the versimillitude falls apart anyway.




If they told you they hated the potatoes, why insist on serving the potatoes, do you just like being obstinate?


Since I host the dinner party every time, after a few weeks I would make a potatoe side dish. Because I want to eat it, because they are not the only guest, and because I make plenty of food specifically for them allready.

Talakeal
2019-01-16, 09:07 AM
There's at least four players and one GM, it behoves me to actually listen to my players. The first thing I ask after every session is what can I do better next time, what did they like and what did they not like. (didn't you witness this before you vanished?) Even so, if I get the sense that my players didn't like something, even if they didn't say anything verbally, I change things for next time. I'm entertained by them being entertained.

If they told you they hated the potatoes, why insist on serving the potatoes, do you just like being obstinate?

Then again, even outside of gaming I'm the kind of person who is very fortright about my opinions, and expects the same back in return. If a player, I'll tell the GM the game sucks, if a GM, I'll listen to someone when they tell me the game sucks.



To which I'd respond that they just talked for over six seconds, while moving back and forth thus they spent their actions.

Just to clarify here, I am not saying that the GM should ignore their players desires. I am saying that there are multiple people at the table, including the dm, who all need to have fun and compromise.

If the DM flat out ignores one or more players desires, they are a jerk.

If a PC refuses to interact with a piece of content, or actively goes out of their way to make sure the other players cant interact with it, they are a jerk.


On this particular issue I am not really made up one way or another. Occasional Quips during combat break up the monotony and allow for some characterization of the villains, but arent really a big deal or something I do all the time.

Prefight monologues are something I save for really special occassions.

The one the really annoys me is post fight interrogations, when the PCs are trying to beat information out of a defeated villain and one of the PCs executes them first, that seems to throw a wrench int he works for everyone.


I have actually been on the other side of the issue as well, a few years ago my ranger, a sheperdess with favored enemy wolf, was fighting an orc warlord with a pet warg and I wanted to shoot his pet during his monologue. The DM said no, and also wouldnt let me ready an action or even get a bonus to initiative for when he was done. I even started a thread about it. So I do have some sympathy negstive feelings on the manner.

Bastian Weaver
2019-01-16, 10:56 AM
1. Nope. I usually enjoy dialogue during combat as a player.
2. Concerning "people only do it in superhero comics and japanese cartoons".
The Witch-King Nazgul and Darth Vader are two non-japanese villains who come to my mind immediately.

The Jack
2019-01-16, 11:55 AM
"You are using Bonetti's defense against me, eh?"
"I thought it fitting, considering the rocky terrain."

I want to thank this forum for directing me to such a fantastic film. A truly inspirational masterclass of cinema.


On to the main topic.


Get good.

There are two ways to do it
Full Ham
Or realistic.

If you go full ham, you gotta go full ham. Accidental ham is terrible.
Never, under any circumstance, just blindly ape what you've seen in movies and anime, and be serious about it, unless you're definitely portraying an awful character. You need charisma and intensity to pull of 'MY FINAL FORM' in combat, and if you're not doing it as a joke, you need a rationalization for why your character is saying that, because they're not saying anime lines because they've watched anime (No joke though, I once said 'my father always told me to use my head' after I headbutted a bully in the playground... I continue to want to kill my past self) They're saying lines to buy time, intimidate, confuse... don't just be blindly following a trope, understand why it's there. You're not going to create any tension by delivering hackney lines whilst the players swarm and hack at you. honestly, if you deliver the line poor enough, the players are going to care a lot less for the final form reveal. You can add a sense of underwhelm to even getting a dragon out of shapechange.


Make things more gritty.
Bargaining. Honestly Bargaining is the best use of your mouth when it comes to fights. Get your enemies to surrender or flee, buy your enemies, buy your escape, cease fighting.
Rage/intimidation- Screams and curses.
wounds. -Grunts, curses.
Commands- Having an officer tell a grunt to worry about the Flanks or to charge or to 'STAND AND FIGHT' or whatever is awesome. Especially because you can give players good feedback by having an officer struggle to deal with them.

Beleriphon
2019-01-16, 12:04 PM
1. Nope. I usually enjoy dialogue during combat as a player.
2. Concerning "people only do it in superhero comics and japanese cartoons".
The Witch-King Nazgul and Darth Vader are two non-japanese villains who come to my mind immediately.

In fairness, they've both backed off their targets, and are intentionally mocking/goading their enemy. In the Witch-King's case he's threatening Théoden, and then laughing at Éowyn.

In the case of Vader he's either mocking Obi-Wan, trying to convince Luke to join him, or having second thoughts about what he's doing with his life (ie. when he's fighting Luke at the end of RotJ).

Jay R
2019-01-16, 06:19 PM
A player may only initiate an attack on his or her own turn, or in reaction to some other rules-defined method. If the rules do not define talking as an action that provokes an Attack of Opportunity, then talking does not provoke an attack of opportunity.


Sure, if you assume everyone else is literally frozen in place for six seconds waiting for their "go" and not dueling back and forth.

That's a false interpretation of the rules. Everybody knows that actual combat is fluid and continuous. Everybody knows that the simulation of combat is discrete and turn-based. The simulation, like all simulations, is much more simplistic than the action being simulated. But if we change the rules at whim, there's no game left.

When I fence, I do not get an opportunity to lunge exactly every six seconds. Sometimes I'll have three in as many seconds, and sometimes it will be a minute or more between potential shots. The "six second" description is, at best, an average over time. Some rounds are longer; some rounds are shorter.

In any event, conversation is a part of combat in literature, in films, and in real life. [I certainly talk to my opponent in a fencing bout.] Just because a player doesn't like this fact does not mean that the rules no longer apply.

A player may only initiate an attack on his or her own turn, or in reaction to some other rules-defined method.

Xuc Xac
2019-01-16, 08:37 PM
A player may only initiate an attack on his or her own turn, or in reaction to some other rules-defined method.

Especially if the player listens to the NPC say two sentences and then says "I attack as soon as she opens her mouth." No you don't. You just sat there listening to her before deciding to attack.

Talakeal
2019-01-17, 03:12 PM
Especially if the player listens to the NPC say two sentences and then says "I attack as soon as she opens her mouth." No you don't. You just sat there listening to her before deciding to attack.

He actually interrupted me about half way through the second sentence. Not sure if that makes it better or worse.

Jay R
2019-01-17, 03:52 PM
He actually interrupted me about half way through the second sentence. Not sure if that makes it better or worse.

It shouldn't mater. The response I recommend is, "The book doesn't state that talking provokes an attack of opportunity, so your attack will occur on your next turn."

D+1
2019-01-17, 05:18 PM
Combat and roleplay aren't oil and water as if they should never be mixed. That some people don't like them to mix doesn't mean that is a trueism. Mixing them is also NOT an all-or-nothing proposition. Furthermore, just because a villain is talking doesn't mean he's monologuing. Just because none of the PC's choose to verbally respond also does not make it monologuing. Just because one of the players/PC's doesn't want to hear it also doesn't mean the DM/bbeg is monologuing.

I find SILENT combats far more irksome than those where nobody says anything. The exchange between Inigo and Wesley in Princess Bride is a good example of how roleplaying and combat can mix perfectly. How insufferably dull would that fight have been if neither of them spoke throughout the whole exchange? No dramatic lead-in "I promise I will not harm you until you reach the top", no mystery "Who ARE you?", no amusing "I am not left-handed!" Not every fight needs to include conversation between opponents but, "No talking EVER!" is an awfully narrow idea of what BOTH combat and roleplaying even ARE, much less how they CAN be used in the game.

The Jack
2019-01-17, 06:19 PM
The fight in the princess bride is fantastic, but they're self aware and hamming it up with camp.

That's key.

The OP was using generic, uninspired lines that might've been fun if he went silly, but he apparently didn't, so they were no good.

Go natural or go silly. Between is no-man's land.

Quertus
2019-01-17, 06:47 PM
"You guys are tougher than you look. I guess I don't have the luxury of holding back."

One of the players interrupted me half way through and said "Oh no, I hate it when villains monoglue. I attack her the second she opens her mouth." Keep in mind that this was during her turn after said PC had already taken his turn.

My friend then told that nobody likes dialogue in combat. It is bad but tolerable when they are making an in combat quip during their turn, worse when they want to do a monologue before the fight, and worst of all if they have already lost but want to give a speech before they die. Regardless of context, if an NPC is talking during a fight only the DM is having fun.

"nobody likes dialogue in combat" - false.

"It is bad but tolerable when they are making an in combat quip during their turn" - only if it's a bad quip.

"worse when they want to do a monologue before the fight," - agreed.

and worst of all if they have already lost but want to give a speech before they die - agreed.

"You guys are tougher than you look. I guess I don't have the luxury of holding back" - tolerable. Pushing 6 seconds, depending on delivery.

"Oh no, I hate it when villains monoglue. I attack her the second she opens her mouth" - perfectly acceptable outside combat, pretty dumb in combat. I'll second (or third or whatever) the "talking does not provoke an AoO". Also, I'll have all NPCs "take their AoO" whenever he opens his mouth outside combat from now on*.

”combat is combat and RP is RP and never the twain shall meet” - false.

* In jest, not actually.


Actually the NPC's making quips during combat are those that the players often find most memorable.


You're sort of proving the premise that only GMs enjoy these tedious speeches.

Hmmm... I was going to agree with RazorChain here, but my senility is preventing me from remembering offhand any good combat quips from my own games (a few from games I've read about, yes, but none from games I've experienced 1st hand).

So... The jury's out? I'll get back to you.


I wonder what would happen if the motormouth PC was attacked mid-sentence every time they opened their mouth in combat.

Great minds... :smallbiggrin:


"You are using Bonetti's defense against me, eh?"
"I thought it fitting, considering the rocky terrain."

Awesome reference! :smallcool:


If a PC refuses to interact with a piece of content,

That's their right. Participationism is not mandatory.


On this particular issue I am not really made up one way or another. Occasional Quips during combat break up the monotony and allow for some characterization of the villains, but arent really a big deal or something I do all the time.

Making quips (or not) should help characterize everyone in combat, not just the NPCs. And, much like teaching, yes, you should aim for "not monotony" in your games. :smallwink:

Talakeal
2019-01-17, 06:48 PM
The fight in the princess bride is fantastic, but they're self aware and hamming it up with camp.

That's key.

The OP was using generic, uninspired lines that might've been fun if he went silly, but he apparently didn't, so they were no good.

Go natural or go silly. Between is no-man's land.


Actually, I was going for a silly line, although as I was interrupted 2/3 of the way through I never got to the punchline.

The Jack
2019-01-17, 07:26 PM
Actually, I was going for a silly line, although as I was interrupted 2/3 of the way through I never got to the punchline.

Do you do voices?

Pauly
2019-01-17, 08:09 PM
The fight in the princess bride is fantastic, but they're self aware and hamming it up with camp.

That's key.

The OP was using generic, uninspired lines that might've been fun if he went silly, but he apparently didn't, so they were no good.

Go natural or go silly. Between is no-man's land.

The old Hollywood swashbucklers were about 90%-95% fighting and 5-10% dialogue in the sword fights. Often there was some dialogue before crossing blades. Some examples.

Ty Power -v- Basil Rathbone
https://youtu.be/nB8tiSMCwRE

Errol Flynn -v- Basil Rathbone
https://youtu.be/4MqmpL6X_8w

Errol Flynn -v- Basil Rathbone
https://youtu.be/q9rT7hvb6Aw

Gene Kelly and company in the three musketeers. Which probably has the inspiration for the fighters in the Princess Bride starting the duel left handed
Cardinal’s guard: “why don’t you use your right”
Athos “l save my right hand for drinking”
https://youtu.be/LDQAtdFlREA

Most of the dialogue in those fights is far from inspired, but it adds to the fun.

Jerrykhor
2019-01-17, 11:59 PM
The best way to stop a villain monologue is to be naked.

"So, the heroes have finally a.... Wait, why are you all naked?"

KillianHawkeye
2019-01-18, 01:06 AM
The fight in the princess bride is fantastic, but they're self aware and hamming it up with camp.

That's key.

The OP was using generic, uninspired lines that might've been fun if he went silly, but he apparently didn't, so they were no good.

Go natural or go silly. Between is no-man's land.

Not everyone has the benefit of Hollywood writers, though. You have to accept that there's going to be taunts and quips that don't measure up when they happen spontaneously in a game setting. And that's fine. Using taunts, quips, and zinging one-liners is a skill that needs to be practiced like any other.

So don't shut people down just because they're not good at it or not doing it in the "proper" way or style unless you're in some weird dystopian pro-D&D league where poor roleplaying gets you tossed into an isolation cell for 8 hours or whipped or something crazy like that.

Remember, D&D is a game people play for fun, not a high-stakes Broadway play where the actors get electrocuted if the show's reviews are bad. Although, I just got a great idea for a new reality TV series......... :smallamused:

NorthernPhoenix
2019-01-18, 03:00 AM
I can't think of many popular action movies in recent years that don't have dialogue in combat. It's a pretty omnipresent consept. I also have a very dim view of players who think they're being clever by doing the exact opposite of what's normal.

That said, if everyone except you dislikes something, maybe try having a talk about tone and expectations?

Malphegor
2019-01-18, 04:12 AM
In combat talk also opens up opportunities to roleplay out befriending your enemy, if you need a mechanical reason to speak to something that probably has interesting desires and goals that lead them to becoming your foe.

There's nothing better than a villain going "you know, you're not so different from I", and the players to go "He's got a point" and they join the bad guy.

Or a bandit coming by and going on a long spiel about standing and delivering and how they should give him their money and the players are like "you know, we can pretty much afford to take you out of poverty forever. How would you like to be made into a (fake) great hero?" and then the quest turns from 'killing bandits' to 'reforming bandits and propping them up as heroes but accidentally making them real heroes'

tabletop gaming is pretty unique in that it doesn't have to follow the rules of narrative convention. You can have these grand, cinematic fights, or you can just go screw it, and go for a quiet cup of tea with a lich and have a grand old time. You can chat with the dragon, and that's just lovely.

Garwain
2019-01-18, 05:00 AM
Regardless of context, if an NPC is talking during a fight only the DM is having fun.

So you spend hours preparing for the session and you can't have your 2 lines of fun? Clearly your player has never DM'ed for you.

kamikasei
2019-01-18, 05:59 AM
My friend then told that nobody likes dialogue in combat... Regardless of context, if an NPC is talking during a fight only the DM is having fun.

...is this just one hack and slash gamer talking for everyone? Thoughts?
Yes, this is just one hack and slash gamer talking for everyone.

Afaict he seems to think that combat is combat and RP is RP and never the twain shall meet. Although in truth I suspect it ir probably just because he is looking for an excuse to be an attention whore.
Well there you go (https://media.giphy.com/media/l4pTsh45Dg7jnDM6Q/giphy.gif).

Dialogue during a combat can be distracting or mess with the flow/pacing, but there's no reason why opponents can't yell taunts or insults or threats during a fight, especially ones that give the players additional information about their context or motivations.

Tanarii
2019-01-18, 06:58 AM
I'm with your players. Don't monologue or have NPCs speak, other than they would actually speak during an actual combat. Battle shouts, requests and/or commands if they have allies, cries of dismay, definitely occasional pained screams, and of course some death rattles. But what you're describing is clearly a unrealistic monologue, if a short one.

Clearly this is a universal thing. Except of course ...


This largely seems like a genre thing - in most genres there wouldn't necessarily be much (the occasional yell for help, something like "they're over there", etc.), but if I were running a superhero campaign? At that point there's pretty much an implicit agreement that everyone is going to be downright garrulous.Yeah, this. Totally not actually universal, and definitely a genre or play style thing. :smallamused:

Not everyone wants their games to be 'realistic' in this regard, especially if they're trying to make their game into a novel or comic book. :smallyuk: on that last personally, but different folks ...


"You are using Bonetti's defense against me, eh?"
"I thought it fitting, considering the rocky terrain."
Good example of exactly why DMs shouldn't do this. What made that scene so memorable is how silly it was for them to be having a conversation in the middle of it. Which was hilarious, in a movie that's a series of spoofs and jokes.

So unless your game is supposed to be a series of the same recurring spoofs and jokes over and over again, maybe restrict it to a single time to highlight the joke?

theelix1
2019-01-18, 07:09 AM
thanks for lovely information..
تنظيف الوجه في دبي

RedWarlock
2019-01-18, 07:24 AM
Honestly, this whole thread inspired me to add a mechanic to a martial leader class I'm building for my homebrew system.

The Tyrant class has two variant core powers, Command, and Intimidate. (You take a feat that grants that power, which allows you to take levels in that class after, which includes upgrades to that power. Once you're in, you can also take the other power with another feat, and select which one gets the relevant upgrade, and use other mechanics to buy the other upgrade if you like. Strictly speaking, there's a third power, Followers, which creates an abstract minion swarm, but not relevant here.)

Normally it just applies a status effect to allies or enemies, respectively (positive or negative), but I'm going to modify it based on this. Instead, if the play spouts an original, dramatically-appropriate quip/threat/inspiring word, the check (which modulates the strength of the effect), gets a boost, though it's not required. If they repeat the same sentiment on a later usage (even with different wording), they suffer a penalty from diminishing returns. (Likewise, not saying anything, then not saying anything again, the character is assumed to use generic, appropriate statements, but doesn't get any special benefit, and suffers the same diminishing return afterwards.) This penalty stacks up to three, which causes the effect to fail upon attempt. New original statements reset the penalty to neutral.

This only costs one act out of the character's three acts per turn, so they're able to do plenty more otherwise. (A normal attack action costs two acts, for instance.)

Max_Killjoy
2019-01-18, 08:12 AM
Not everyone has the benefit of Hollywood writers, though. You have to accept that there's going to be taunts and quips that don't measure up when they happen spontaneously in a game setting. And that's fine. Using taunts, quips, and zinging one-liners is a skill that needs to be practiced like any other.

So don't shut people down just because they're not good at it or not doing it in the "proper" way or style unless you're in some weird dystopian pro-D&D league where poor roleplaying gets you tossed into an isolation cell for 8 hours or whipped or something crazy like that.

Remember, D&D is a game people play for fun, not a high-stakes Broadway play where the actors get electrocuted if the show's reviews are bad. Although, I just got a great idea for a new reality TV series......... :smallamused:


And a lot of "professional" dialogue is still cringe-worthy.

Unavenger
2019-01-18, 08:51 AM
As a DM or as a player, I enjoy having dialogue in combat, and I've never had a player who thought it "Interrupted the flow" of combat. Which is good, because a lot of my campaigns have in-combat or end-of-combat dialogue or monologues. Some examples from my Ravnica campaign:

"‘This was supposed to be an easy mission. Clear up the black market and then head home. But no. It never is. You criminals… never make it easy...’ She collapses, either dead or about to be."

"The controls[...] blare out a warning. ‘Threat detected!’"

(One combat is literally an impromptu performance): "‘Bravo, bravo!’, intones the troupe leader. ‘I know it’s been an exciting performance, but I think our stars have deserved their rest. In the mean time, let’s have a hand for our stars of the show, and our talented team of extras!’ The audience applauds as the performers take a bow. ‘Our next act will be a show of cordiality, cornering and comeuppance! As for what that means… well, you’ll find out after the interval. Thank you, and we’ll be back in half an hour!’"

(Probably the longest monologue by far; the players have to make a choice whether or not to kill this character): "One of the fire warriors, still alive, crawls over and shakes the soldier next to her. He’s dead, his skin showing all the pallor that dark skin such as his could possibly muster. ‘He had a sister! Her name is Alicia!’ she yells at you, coughing up blood as she speaks. ‘He was called Jonathan and he was like a brother to me! The man [the players killed in the most graphic way] was Jamie and he always had the best jokes!’ She coughs back tears and holds her hand over her wound. ‘All of us were just doing what we were meant to do, trying to secure the district. I came to the protest because I wanted to have some fun doing it… I didn’t realise that this was going to be my last performance.’ It then dawns on you that she was on-stage earlier, helping with the fireworks display."

(A slightly pre-fight bit of conversation): "The hybrid growls. ‘Perfect.’ He lashes out at the nearest scientist with his [claws/flamberge] faster than you can react, and turns to face you, grinning. ‘What, you thought I volunteered for this project out of the goodness of my heart? Hah! No, I no longer work for the Simic.’ He tears off a button-shaped Simic symbol and throws it straight through the glass of his growth pod.”

Three of these give important information. One is actually ultimately your ally monologuing. One of them is potentially interesting, albeit not massively necessary, information. If the players enjoy fighting more stuff, missing out on two allies later, and failing to find a powerful magic item, they can totally interrupt or ignore most of these. But I haven't had a player complain about talking in combat yet.

Jay R
2019-01-18, 09:14 AM
This disagreement is not new, is not restricted to gaming, and will not be solved by us here.

From the duel between D'Artagnan and Athos in Alexandre Dumas's 1844 novel The Three Musketeers:

“Come, come, enough of such compliments!” cried Porthos. “Remember, we are waiting for our turns.”

“Speak for yourself when you are inclined to utter such incongruities,” interrupted Aramis. “For my part, I think what they say is very well said, and quite worthy of two gentlemen.”

Quertus
2019-01-18, 09:14 AM
Actually, I was going for a silly line, although as I was interrupted 2/3 of the way through I never got to the punchline.


So you spend hours preparing for the session and you can't have your 2 lines of fun? Clearly your player has never DM'ed for you.

If the GM's fun breaks the rules, or ruins the fun for others? No. Just like if any other player's fun broke the rules or ruined the fun for others.

This seems a clear case of one player's fun hurting the fun of others.

Talakeal, my recommendation is, tone it back to less of a monologue - keep it to short one-liners. And consider characterizing your NPCs with descriptive text (possibly even with spotlight time for the PCs). For example: (optional "everyone make a Sense Motive check" - success yields the following:) "she entered the fight very cocky and confident, but you see that confidence waning. A dark thought crosses her mind, but she quickly dismisses it". Or a listen check to hear her mumble "not yet" under her breath. Maybe even grant mechanical benefits for those who make the checks - +2 to hit, +4 to feint, +6 to any Chr-based checks for having insight into her current mental state (obviously, it's an Insight bonus :smalltongue:)

Sure, none of those are probably correct role-playing for your specific NPC, but I trust that you can find some way to correctly roleplay them that involves similar characterization without hitting your players' "NPC monolog" alarm bells.


In combat talk also opens up opportunities to roleplay out befriending your enemy,

There's nothing better than a villain going "you know, you're not so different from I", and the players to go "He's got a point" and they join the bad guy.

Or a bandit ... and then the quest turns from 'killing bandits' to 'reforming bandits and propping them up as heroes but accidentally making them real heroes'

You can have these grand, cinematic fights, or you can just go screw it, and go for a quiet cup of tea with a lich and have a grand old time. You can chat with the dragon, and that's just lovely.

Love your examples!

Fwiw, Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, is all about chatting with dragons and having tea with liches (having done both).


Dialogue during a combat can be distracting or mess with the flow/pacing, but there's no reason why opponents can't yell taunts or insults or threats during a fight, especially ones that give the players additional information about their context or motivations.

Fully agree. I'm not completely certain which this is, but it's clear that (some of) the players don't like it.

BreaktheStatue
2019-01-18, 09:29 AM
Dislike combat quips or not, interrupting the DM (or anyone for that matter) mid-sentence seems to be extremely poor form.

There's no reason the player couldn't have waited to talk about it OoC after the session.

Tanarii
2019-01-18, 10:16 AM
Looking at this thread again, it almost reads to me like the player was attempting to pull off a classic inversion. aka Mr. Incredible vs Syndrome. "You sly dog! You got me monologuing!"

flond
2019-01-18, 10:50 AM
I'll say this. I'm generally fine with a good monologue, but remember the day you decide to be subversive and " while you've listened to me talk I've had my guards surround you." Is the last day you get to monolouge.

Jay R
2019-01-18, 11:28 AM
I'll say this. I'm generally fine with a good monologue, but remember the day you decide to be subversive and " while you've listened to me talk I've had my guards surround you." Is the last day you get to monolouge.

Agreed. In your hypothetical case of the DM using this to get a free attack, he's cheating.

But back to the subject. Are you just as strongly against the actual case of the player using this to get a free attack?

flond
2019-01-18, 11:49 AM
Agreed. In your hypothetical case of the DM using this to get a free attack, he's cheating.

But back to the subject. Are you just as strongly against the actual case of the player using this to get a free attack?

Honestly no. Not as strongly. Though objectively I should be.

I think what I was saying was a more flippant version of the genre argument. That you need to decide if this dialogue is sectioned off or if it has any sort of tactical value.

And I think it's fairly fine to start with, in games that haven't stated otherwise, the idea that monologues happen and it's a courtesy to let them happen (plus or minus some player responses)

Quertus
2019-01-18, 12:00 PM
Dislike combat quips or not, interrupting the DM (or anyone for that matter) mid-sentence seems to be extremely poor form.

There's no reason the player couldn't have waited to talk about it OoC after the session.


I'll say this. I'm generally fine with a good monologue, but remember the day you decide to be subversive and " while you've listened to me talk I've had my guards surround you." Is the last day you get to monolouge.

I've had far, far too many GMs take advantage of me being polite, and saying that because I didn't interrupt them, neither did my character, to just accept the appeal to etiquette. Although that's certainly something for clarification / session 0.

Xuc Xac
2019-01-18, 05:27 PM
Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named,

Do you have a macro for that or do you type it out for each post?

The Jack
2019-01-18, 06:00 PM
Interuptions are fine at the table, so long as they're from the character, not the player.

There was one time where the party was contracted to ill a bunch of mushroom people who'd filled up a mine. I might've conflated some of this with other things that happened in the campaign, but it basically went like this;

One of the players idiotically engaged in the mushroom dialogue, as she saught a peaceful sollution. She was new and had a terrible character concept.
I of course boom in with "DWARF-DWARF TIRES OF YOUR INDIGNATION' I hit him with my axe' (or something like that. yes, my character did refer to himself in third person" while she's still speaking.

The DM (he was terrible and we all hated him) maybe thought I was being rude or something, or couldn't deal with two people talking, and continued the peace talks, ignoring my roll and outburst.
But, In my mind and looking back on it, I did the right thing; it was all in character. (also, of course the mushrooms were evil and they were trying to spore us to death wen we entered dialogue with them)


Interruptions are natural, and something writers tend to forget about because they're weird to write down. You should encourage characters to interrupt each other.


That said, 'No monologing'
-the player's a ****
-the interuption doesn't relate well to the character. The player's clearly mad at a genre trope.

icefractal
2019-01-18, 09:04 PM
But, In my mind and looking back on it, I did the right thing; it was all in character.I think the other player in question may disagree with you on that point ...

But you do bring up a good point why GMs might want to sometimes just ignore attack declarations - if handled realistically, they're basically a veto on any non-violent actions other players might want to do, and why should a single player necessarily have that power?

But, one might say, that's just roleplaying. If the other characters don't like the way Dwarf Dwarf acts, they can respond in-character. Well yes - and the realistic IC response would be to stop associating with that character. As in, they are no longer part of the party. Maybe the party even splits apart entirely. Something usually considered undesirable.

So IMO, if the players are constrained by an "everyone at the table gets to be in the party" meta-rule, they should be constrained by a "don't step on each-other's toes too much" one as well. If not - then sure, anything goes.

Feralgeist
2019-01-18, 10:33 PM
This is a very interesting discussion.



there's no reason why opponents can't yell taunts or insults or threats during a fight, especially ones that give the players additional information about their context or motivations.

Came here to +1 this sentiment but also add that in every IRL game I've played/run the general unspoken rule is "a round is six seconds, you can say as much as you can during that time" I think for WoD it's 5 or 10 seconds? It seems to be more lenient. Games on the forums here are another matter entirely given the slower pace and the focus on storycraft.

Anyways speaking during combat HAS to be allowed but should stick to the 6 second rule in my opinion. The reason it is necessary is it gives DMs tools to give players pertinent information that they wouldn't otherwise know to ask about and is also a prerequisite for alot of class features. (Looking at you, bards, mastermind rogues, enchanters and Pact of the Chain GOO warlocks) it gives RP heavy builds a way to still be viable in combat by utilizing all their abilities.

TOO much talk from any one person to the point where it could be called a monologue shouldn't be done more than any one individual (DM included) more than once per session, and if it is lengthy DM speech people need options to be sneaky and prepare. Divvy your monologue into rounds and have the PCs act per round, sleight of handing to draw hidden blades, making subtle casting checks, barring the door so the alarm isn't raised, etc. Declaring no actions during a speech is a wasted opportunity and if you don't want them being attacked midsentence either safeguard them with environment/distance/spells or make them converse as they evade and get hit and react. It'll make your villain seem stronger/more unconcerned and make your players feel more free and even innovative if they manage to come up with something to help them in the impending fight. Everyone, especially newcomers to D&D, froths on a nice free circumstantial advantage as a reward for getting engaged with the game. SURE they could sucker punch him at the start, but if they know they can gain some tactical advantage just by hearing him out alot of players (particularly RP focused ones) will leap at the chance. Some of the funnest moments in IRL games I've ever had were from dialogue blurted mid combat, it's awesome and a great way for players to help mount the horror in stuff like Call of Cthulu.

Quertus
2019-01-18, 10:53 PM
Do you have a macro for that or do you type it out for each post?

Neither? Both? I've typed it so many times, when I type "Quertus", my phone usually suggests "my signature academia mage for whom this account is named" (albeit one word at a time). Just like "Illithid" always prompts "Savant", and "Tainted" always prompts "Sorcerer". I just have to add punctuation.

Yora
2019-01-19, 03:30 AM
My favorite combat dialog from fiction is probably at the end of Unforgiven where the protagonist has the antagonist wounded and beaten:
"I don't deserve this!"
"Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

That's the kind of talking I'm expecting from a fight.

But this discussio served as a good reminder that I should treat everything longer than a three word command as "doing nothing but defending" an moving that round. From anyone.

Talakeal
2019-01-19, 10:39 AM
So to put a little fuel on a dying thread:

How do you feel about bad guys who gloat when they win?

The couple of times I have tried that I have made the PCs mad IRL as they feel that I am rubbing their faces in their failure, and even good RPers respond to it with stony silence and thousand yard stairs.



Do you do voices?

I try not to but sometimes I slip into one unintentionally.

I am not good at voices, I can't hold any one accent for more than a line or two, and after playing under a DM who did the same silly strained growl for every single NPC I realized how annoying it is when a DM who can't do voices tries.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-19, 10:53 AM
I try not to but sometimes I slip into one unintentionally.

I am not good at voices, I can't hold any one accent for more than a line or two, and after playing under a DM who did the same silly strained growl for every single NPC I realized how annoying it is when a DM who can't do voices tries.

I'll try for particularly interesting voices for just a phrase or two (same with dialects) just to set the tone but will switch to my regular voice because it gets either exhausting or bad, fast.

TalonOfAnathrax
2019-01-19, 11:24 AM
Talking in combat is important. For one thing, it's how players (and enemies) can tell each other what to do if something unexpected happens. It's how they can surrender, or maybe even try to use Intimidate or Bluff (or equivalent skills in various systems).

It's also often quite fun.

Of course as a GM I tend to make anything longer than a sentence or two count as your action, or impose penalties to dice rolls. Quips or short instructions are alright, not long monologues. If you want a long monologues, prepare for other people to act while you tell them your life story.

>2cents

The Jack
2019-01-19, 01:10 PM
I think the other player in question may disagree with you on that point ...

But you do bring up a good point why GMs might want to sometimes just ignore attack declarations - if handled realistically, they're basically a veto on any non-violent actions other players might want to do, and why should a single player necessarily have that power?

But, one might say, that's just roleplaying. If the other characters don't like the way Dwarf Dwarf acts, they can respond in-character. Well yes - and the realistic IC response would be to stop associating with that character. As in, they are no longer part of the party. Maybe the party even splits apart entirely. Something usually considered undesirable.

So IMO, if the players are constrained by an "everyone at the table gets to be in the party" meta-rule, they should be constrained by a "don't step on each-other's toes too much" one as well. If not - then sure, anything goes.

"Why should a single player necessarily have that power?"
Well, if they all have that power, then it's all even.

(DD, as the most contentious character in the party, was the man driving the plot. Some characters loved him, some hated him. I as a player had no problems with players, though I confess I held back killing half the party... which was largely the GM's fault)

The opposite is worse.
I ust remembered another part of that specific scenario; The DM did let me charge in and attack (it was another time he didn't) and the negotiator, aghast, tried to talk me out of it. The DM let her make a roll to stop me, and she succeeded (for a turn).

Which made me livid, because there's no way he'd have listened to her unless she threatened to attack him.

Talakeal
2019-01-19, 01:38 PM
"Why should a single player necessarily have that power?"
Well, if they all have that power, then it's all even.

(DD, as the most contentious character in the party, was the man driving the plot. Some characters loved him, some hated him. I as a player had no problems with players, though I confess I held back killing half the party... which was largely the GM's fault)

The opposite is worse.
I ust remembered another part of that specific scenario; The DM did let me charge in and attack (it was another time he didn't) and the negotiator, aghast, tried to talk me out of it. The DM let her make a roll to stop me, and she succeeded (for a turn).

Which made me livid, because there's no way he'd have listened to her unless she threatened to attack him.

Well, not really even, its a lot easier to disrupt negotiations with combat than it is to disrupt combat with negotiations.

I agree, using social skills on other PCs is BS.

Would it fly in your group if the rest of the PCs just stood back and let you die though?

The Jack
2019-01-19, 02:09 PM
Well, not really even, its a lot easier to disrupt negotiations with combat than it is to disrupt combat with negotiations.

I agree, using social skills on other PCs is BS.

Would it fly in your group if the rest of the PCs just stood back and let you die though?

I was winning, but honestly, I personally wouldn't mind it.


But hey, I'm warped. My first games of DnD were awful, but someone hosted some awesome VTM games and I grew a lot as a player from that. Going back to DnD with the right players and finding it good was nice, but I like the VTM mentality (No, I'm not a trenchcoat'n katanas player) and 'I'll let a player get screwed slightly so they'll owe me' is good play. If the group's good, I like that sorta stuff.

Tanarii
2019-01-19, 05:54 PM
The opposite is worse.
I ust remembered another part of that specific scenario; The DM did let me charge in and attack (it was another time he didn't) and the negotiator, aghast, tried to talk me out of it. The DM let her make a roll to stop me, and she succeeded (for a turn).

Which made me livid, because there's no way he'd have listened to her unless she threatened to attack him.
There are plenty of RPGs where that kind of thing is explicit in the social resolution rules. And its by no means uncommon use of DM adjudication in the ones where its not explicit but neither forbidden.

JoeJ
2019-01-19, 09:05 PM
There are plenty of RPGs where that kind of thing is explicit in the social resolution rules. And its by no means uncommon use of DM adjudication in the ones where its not explicit but neither forbidden.

If there's a mechanic for persuasion, then it really doesn't make a lot of sense not to use it when somebody (either an NPC or another PC) is trying to persuade a PC.

Tanarii
2019-01-19, 10:18 PM
If there's a mechanic for persuasion, then it really doesn't make a lot of sense not to use it when somebody (either an NPC or another PC) is trying to persuade a PC.no particular reason why not. Storyteller systems in particular assume its the player's responsibility to make decisions for their characters based on constraints determined by the outcome of social roll dice.

In other words, dice determine the options available to a character. No special reason social rolls can't do that.

The Jack
2019-01-20, 07:20 AM
Do it then. Players will hate you..

*That character you hate convinces you that you really shouldn't do that thing that you really wanted to do and should instead do that thing that you really don't want to do; they have no leverage and everything they say is garbage to your character, but boy did they roll well...

Yeah, nah, that's cancer at the table.
When it's compounded with a supernatural power, IE VTM's dominate, it's horrifyng, and it's upsetting, but there's a justification for it and the player's lack of agency over their character is somewhat forgivable because, well," it's the magic's fault that I killed someone and surrendered so easily" Hell, if you're using something like dominate, the dm can do things like "you find yourself approaching your daughter, dagger in hand, all your attempts to turn away are ignored by your body, as you continue forward.."

But, y'know, "you're convinced you need to kill your daughter, you take your dagger and kill her" is absolute bull****.

And you go "wait, my character would never kill his/her daughter, that's too extreme!"

Well, from the point of view of a player, agreeing with -guy who could get us all killed with dumb suggestion- is extreme. If you have -players can be persuaded to do things by rolls- then, well, you don't get to call borders on what's extreme or not.


*one thing though, is lies. Sometimes, the DM isn't good with lies or whatever. The DM is good to say 'the character is of course far more convincing that I am' but I you should never force a course of action on the player without explicit magic.

Boci
2019-01-20, 08:11 AM
no particular reason why not. Storyteller systems in particular assume its the player's responsibility to make decisions for their characters based on constraints determined by the outcome of social roll dice.

In other words, dice determine the options available to a character. No special reason social rolls can't do that.

The reason would be that a ST gets to decide if the request is reasonable, so when an NPC uses a social skill on the players, they would then get to decide if their player found that reasonable themselves.

What system are you thinking of that doesn't allow a ST to make a ruling on whether the request is reasonable and must only look at the dice?

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-20, 08:20 AM
I'm totally ok with asymmetry in social skills, meaning that NPCs don't roll persuasion vs PCs. Yes, it makes PCs "special". But the game comes first and it poses a large danger of horrible railroading.

But then again, I give much more limited scope for social skill checks in general--persuasion is not mind control. If you make an unreasonable request to an NPC (decided by the NPC!), no amount of high rolls will get you what you want. You might be able to wear them down and bargain, but just straight up "give me your crown" to a king is basically going to fall flat at best. For truly unreasonable requests I don't even allow a roll, because checks are for things that are in doubt.

NPCs can attempt to lie, intimidate, or persuade the PCs, but the mechanical implementations of these are different.

Boci
2019-01-20, 08:30 AM
I'm totally ok with asymmetry in social skills, meaning that NPCs don't roll persuasion vs PCs. Yes, it makes PCs "special". But the game comes first and it poses a large danger of horrible railroading.

But then again, I give much more limited scope for social skill checks in general--persuasion is not mind control. If you make an unreasonable request to an NPC (decided by the NPC!), no amount of high rolls will get you what you want. You might be able to wear them down and bargain, but just straight up "give me your crown" to a king is basically going to fall flat at best. For truly unreasonable requests I don't even allow a roll, because checks are for things that are in doubt.

NPCs can attempt to lie, intimidate, or persuade the PCs, but the mechanical implementations of these are different.

Forum discussions tend to get tainted with the over the top examples of persuasion. Most games already have reasonability clauses for social skills, and even if they don't, its a given that GM won't have the king hand over his crown, even if the player rolled high and the rules don't explicitly disallow absurd demands.

A better example is, "Is this really dying over? Retreat now and no more blood need be shed,"

That's a perfectly reasonable point, and has a decent chance of working on guards and mooks and possible even a bigger NPC, depending on circumstances and how well the player rolled, but what about when the NPC makes that argument to the players? Its likely a reasonable argument, PCs often find themselves doing risky stuff for a rewarded that may not be worth their life, but the players still get to decide if they find that argument reasonable. I can't think of a system that would use dice rolls only for such a situation.

Tanarii
2019-01-20, 08:47 AM
Do it then. Players will hate you..

*That character you hate convinces you that you really shouldn't do that thing that you really wanted to do and should instead do that thing that you really don't want to do; they have no leverage and everything they say is garbage to your character, but boy did they roll well...

Yeah, nah, that's cancer at the table. Social resolution systems generally don't allows this kind of thing to be successful. Even ones that constrain social resolution to PC vs NPC. Any more than they allow physical or mental resolution tasks to do insane or impossible things without supernatural / super-heroic abilities driving them.

Boci
2019-01-20, 08:48 AM
Social resolution systems generally don't allows this kind of thing to be successful. Even ones that constrain social resolution to PC vs NPC. Any more than they allow physical or mental resolution tasks to do insane or impossible things without supernatural / super-heroic abilities driving them.

Yes, they don't allow for that via a reasonability clause, which would apply to players as well. "Nope, my character doesn't find that reasonable, not in the current situation, so I don't listen to them".

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-20, 09:01 AM
Yes, they don't allow for that via a reasonability clause, which would apply to players as well. "Nope, my character doesn't find that reasonable, not in the current situation, so I don't listen to them".

Yeah, the key is who gets to make that reasonability decision. For me, the players get that choice for their characters barring magical intervention. And since the players are free to choose, there's no room for social skills against PCs unless the players choose to ask for such things (if, for instance they're not sure if the character would comply but the request is reasonable). If they do call for a check, they set the target number.

Tanarii
2019-01-20, 09:24 AM
Powered by the Apocalypse (the original apocalyptic game) and Mutanant Zero made social PvP work. The latter game basically being PtbA redone with completely different core resolution mechanics. Torchbearer had social conflicts for NPC vs PC, including NPCs "attacking" PCs. Various Warhammer systems have allowed social checks vs PCs. Exalted charms can definitely affect PCs, but those are supernatural.

"Social resolution systems don't work on PCs" is a rather niche concept. It's generally a D&D-derived conceit, where the assumption seems to be that the player is always allowed complete freedom to determine what their PC tries to do with no boundaries, or else it becomes an NPC completely under DM control. There no particular reason that must be the case.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-20, 09:35 AM
I don't dispute any of that, Tanarii, but it's not a matter of "it's impossible", but merely "I don't like it." I don't do PvP in any form. Social combat systems feel like PvP, pitting real people against each other (instead of being mediated through the characters). And that's unpleasant for me. It's one major reason I won't play AW--it relies on PCs being at odds with each other.

Max_Killjoy
2019-01-20, 10:13 AM
Powered by the Apocalypse (the original apocalyptic game) and Mutanant Zero made social PvP work. The latter game basically being PtbA redone with completely different core resolution mechanics. Torchbearer had social conflicts for NPC vs PC, including NPCs "attacking" PCs. Various Warhammer systems have allowed social checks vs PCs. Exalted charms can definitely affect PCs, but those are supernatural.

"Social resolution systems don't work on PCs" is a rather niche concept. It's generally a D&D-derived conceit, where the assumption seems to be that the player is always allowed complete freedom to determine what their PC tries to do with no boundaries, or else it becomes an NPC completely under DM control. There no particular reason that must be the case.

It might be niche, but it's hardly D&D-derived. There are a lot of tables that ditched D&D-likes a long time ago where using social rolls against other PCs just isn't done.

Max_Killjoy
2019-01-20, 10:17 AM
Forum discussions tend to get tainted with the over the top examples of persuasion. Most games already have reasonability clauses for social skills, and even if they don't, its a given that GM won't have the king hand over his crown, even if the player rolled high and the rules don't explicitly disallow absurd demands.

A better example is, "Is this really dying over? Retreat now and no more blood need be shed,"

That's a perfectly reasonable point, and has a decent chance of working on guards and mooks and possible even a bigger NPC, depending on circumstances and how well the player rolled, but what about when the NPC makes that argument to the players? Its likely a reasonable argument, PCs often find themselves doing risky stuff for a rewarded that may not be worth their life, but the players still get to decide if they find that argument reasonable. I can't think of a system that would use dice rolls only for such a situation.

And yet across the many threads that have hit this topic, we've seen people argue that if they roll well enough, nothing should be impossible, and we've seen players relate stories of these sorts of unreasonable rolls working in the games they were in. IIRC, "rolled well enough to convince the king to hand over his crown" became the go-to example because a poster claimed it had happened in a game they were in.

Boci
2019-01-20, 10:24 AM
IIRC, "rolled well enough to convince the king to hand over his crown" became the go-to example because a poster claimed it had happened in a game they were in.

I'm pretty sure its became a go to example because its extreme and forum users really like to use extreme example. See the many "Y would be like doing X" where X is a felony and Y isn't. I'm sure there's been one game, somewhere where a bluff check has gotten a player the crown, maybe it even happened more than once. Thst doesn't change the fact its not a useful example for debating how to use social skills.

Quertus
2019-01-20, 11:48 AM
Yeah, the key is who gets to make that reasonability decision. For me, the players get that choice for their characters barring magical intervention. And since the players are free to choose, there's no room for social skills against PCs unless the players choose to ask for such things (if, for instance they're not sure if the character would comply but the request is reasonable). If they do call for a check, they set the target number.

This is a bloody awesome idea. Kudos!


I don't dispute any of that, Tanarii, but it's not a matter of "it's impossible", but merely "I don't like it." I don't do PvP in any form. Social combat systems feel like PvP, pitting real people against each other (instead of being mediated through the characters). And that's unpleasant for me. It's one major reason I won't play AW--it relies on PCs being at odds with each other.

I'm not a fan of PvP, but I don't necessarily view it as "player vs player". That does sound like one more reason not to like PvP, though.


And yet across the many threads that have hit this topic, we've seen people argue that if they roll well enough, nothing should be impossible, and we've seen players relate stories of these sorts of unreasonable rolls working in the games they were in. IIRC, "rolled well enough to convince the king to hand over his crown" became the go-to example because a poster claimed it had happened in a game they were in.

I mean, I don't know about that specific example, but I do recall that I once convinced a PC to hand over their favorite artifact - no rolls required. If that's possible IRL, I guess I'm not seeing "hand over your crown" as impossible - if there's more to it than that, and you've done your setup work.

I think the most egregious related use of social skills was from an internet horror story where Marty convinced Emperor Palpatine to just hand over the Empire.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-20, 11:53 AM
I'm not a fan of PvP, but I don't necessarily view it as "player vs player". That does sound like one more reason not to like PvP, though.


I find it very rare when PC vs PC doesn't turn into player vs player. Same goes for when DMs feel that the game is zero-sum--that their NPCs losing is the same as them losing. That turns into player vs player antagonism really quickly.

But then again, I'm particularly conflict (between real people) averse. I don't even do competitive games much, even when it's purely "in fun". I'm almost never playing to win relative to other real people, although my characters may want to win/succeed.

Hyperversum
2019-01-20, 12:34 PM
Tedious monologues are tedious, but a quick exchange of words is Simply needed. Maybe the villain can't be fought immediatly, maybe he doesn't want to fight but they are there to kill him and he tries to speak to see if he can make them change their minds.

But in some situations, it's just ridicolous.

The First Big Bad Boss in the campaign I am running now (DnD btw) was the leader of the cult of Mammoth, with his devils and cultists hidden in ancient ruin city. The party reached the place actually not looking for them but for their own reasons, but when they met the first enemies they went like "OH ****. That's why it was so full of devils in the last month (in game)". They avoided direct confrontation and did some guerilla for 3 days inside the territory, ending It by sneaking their way into the main base and freeing the people they were seeking for (that were supposed to explore the city ruin, they had no idea that It was occupied by cultists).
After that, this leader (which had his BG, his personality and all) just started breaking some magical defense that kept the ruins from collapsing, trying to kill those intruders and escape from a route they didn't know.

So, when they rushed where he was to stop him... He didn't give a ****, he just attacked them with Jos devils and kept trying to destroy those defenses.

If they meet him before they could have talked a bit, learning more about what was going and things like that. But since they avoided any contact, why should have him gone monologuing?

Tanarii
2019-01-20, 12:47 PM
I find it very rare when PC vs PC doesn't turn into player vs player.
I'm generally in agreement.

But there are a whole slew of narrative or storytelling games that completely disagree with both of us, where players are either primarily playing the story or at least secondarily play the story. And not expected to take things happening to their PC personally, but rather as an opportunity for an interesting story situation. Including things like outright character death. Or PCvPC, to distinguish it from PvP.

Given that many people enjoy playing AW / PbtA, Torchbearer / BW, White Wolf Games, heck even Warhammer has such sentiments in its GM sections, ... and not always played in a mechanical optimization powerhouse way that subverts the designers apparent intent ... clearly not everyone is necessarily anti PCvPC, especially if it's advancing interesting "story".

Nightcanon
2019-01-20, 01:01 PM
If you know that they're a murderer, and they plan to attack you in the very near future, the smart thing to do is to kill that person before they can kill you. When you are in a life or death situation, your body makes a bunch of drastic chemistry changes to get you ready to respond. One of the results of that is that you're not going to be making any dramatic speeches. Even in a non-life threatening situation, most fist fights start with a sucker punch (maybe some posturing beforehand) not a soliloquy about how good one is at punching. That's a device of dramatic fiction. And it's in your players rights to care about winning fights, particularly if they aren't playing honor obsessed characters.

EDIT: And a GM seeing any player interaction with the game as a "middle finger to the DM" is bad GMing. You need to be impartial. If your players don't like chatter, don't punish them, stop chattering.
I f you know they are a Boss Villain who might have set up a doomsday device or self destruct or whatever, it might be worth letting them monologue until you know how to stop the countdown, maybe? Okay so it might not be realistic, and in a fantasy world where every word might be a spell it might be dangerous, but if the game is the sort where the bad guy gloats and tells you how to foil his evil scheme, then why not take the free info (then shoot him in the face)? Or, if you do go down the Indianna Jones 'just shoot him' route, at least check for countdown clocks etc when you have killed the guy.
Anyhoo, I think objecting to a single line or two of speech during combat as per the OP is a bit much.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-20, 01:13 PM
I'm generally in agreement.

But there are a whole slew of narrative or storytelling games that completely disagree with both of us, where players are either primarily playing the story or at least secondarily play the story. And not expected to take things happening to their PC personally, but rather as an opportunity for an interesting story situation. Including things like outright character death. Or PCvPC, to distinguish it from PvP.

Given that many people enjoy playing AW / PbtA, Torchbearer / BW, White Wolf Games, heck even Warhammer has such sentiments in its GM sections, ... and not always played in a mechanical optimization powerhouse way that subverts the designers apparent intent ... clearly not everyone is necessarily anti PCvPC, especially if it's advancing interesting "story".

Right. And those are games I'm not fond of. But I fully accept that it's a personal taste matter rather than an objective good/bad issue. I'll just not play those games (or only play them wrong).

Jay R
2019-01-20, 04:55 PM
Like most things, it can be done well or poorly or anything in between, and usually is.

In a game a few years ago, our party of teen-aged PCs were leading a siege on the manor of the evil priest who was running that part of the country. During the big battle, my character dropped in front of the priest himself, and the following dialogue ensued.

Priest (in a sneering voice): You? You are the "great heroes" who think you can stop me?
My character: And you'd have gotten away with it if it weren't for us meddling kids.

I'd hate to have lost that moment to a "no talking during melee" rule.

JoeJ
2019-01-20, 05:37 PM
If it gets to be too much, you can always address it in character:

"I don't know if you've been in a fight before, but there's usually not this much talking."

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-20, 05:54 PM
Like most things, it can be done well or poorly or anything in between, and usually is.

In a game a few years ago, our party of teen-aged PCs were leading a siege on the manor of the evil priest who was running that part of the country. During the big battle, my character dropped in front of the priest himself, and the following dialogue ensued.

Priest (in a sneering voice): You? You are the "great heroes" who think you can stop me?
My character: And you'd have gotten away with it if it weren't for us meddling kids.

I'd hate to have lost that moment to a "no talking during melee" rule.

This reminded me of an instance where in-combat talking changed the entire tenor of a campaign (now 2, because it continued with some changes later).

The party was in a ruined city, in a jail full of insane/mindless undead. They'd fought their way up to the second floor, and were facing the head jailor and his (mindless) allies. They had cut down the allies and the jailor said something like "all those working with THEM must die!" It was intended as merely flavor--he wasn't mindless, just paranoid and a bit crazy. They, having remembered what I'd said about the city's history (demons invaded, undead and demons fighting), deduced that he was hostile to the demons and decided to pull back. To go defensive and talk to the jailor. Some good, convincing arguments (and some great rolls) calmed him down enough to talk.

This turned a "caught in the middle of two warring factions while looting a city" campaign into a "ally with one faction and bring in other allies to clear out the demons" campaign. They were eventually (if they explored a bit) going to find a faction of non-insane undead. They were supposed to be wary and hard to get anything out of, but they just proved their non-hostile intent. So by making friends with this guy while in initiative order, they bypassed a lot of hardship and totally changed the campaign for the better.

JoeJ
2019-01-20, 06:13 PM
This reminded me of an instance where in-combat talking changed the entire tenor of a campaign (now 2, because it continued with some changes later).

The party was in a ruined city, in a jail full of insane/mindless undead. They'd fought their way up to the second floor, and were facing the head jailor and his (mindless) allies. They had cut down the allies and the jailor said something like "all those working with THEM must die!" It was intended as merely flavor--he wasn't mindless, just paranoid and a bit crazy. They, having remembered what I'd said about the city's history (demons invaded, undead and demons fighting), deduced that he was hostile to the demons and decided to pull back. To go defensive and talk to the jailor. Some good, convincing arguments (and some great rolls) calmed him down enough to talk.

This turned a "caught in the middle of two warring factions while looting a city" campaign into a "ally with one faction and bring in other allies to clear out the demons" campaign. They were eventually (if they explored a bit) going to find a faction of non-insane undead. They were supposed to be wary and hard to get anything out of, but they just proved their non-hostile intent. So by making friends with this guy while in initiative order, they bypassed a lot of hardship and totally changed the campaign for the better.

One of the things that puts Firefly at the very top of my list of games I want to play (but haven't yet) is that the conflict resolution system does not separate fighting from talking. Trying to stab somebody or trying to persuade them to team up instead of stabbing you both use the same mechanic, and you're not pushed toward one or the other just because you're in initiative order.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-20, 06:27 PM
One of the things that puts Firefly at the very top of my list of games I want to play (but haven't yet) is that the conflict resolution system does not separate fighting from talking. Trying to stab somebody or trying to persuade them to team up instead of stabbing you both use the same mechanic, and you're not pushed toward one or the other just because you're in initiative order.

Honestly, I've never seen resistance from my new players to talking (even taking breaks to try to talk people out of a fight) during combat. It's only the "grognards" (I joke here, but the experienced D&D'ers) who get in the "initiative = fight to the death" mode.

Max_Killjoy
2019-01-20, 07:34 PM
I'm generally in agreement.

But there are a whole slew of narrative or storytelling games that completely disagree with both of us, where players are either primarily playing the story or at least secondarily play the story. And not expected to take things happening to their PC personally, but rather as an opportunity for an interesting story situation. Including things like outright character death. Or PCvPC, to distinguish it from PvP.

Given that many people enjoy playing AW / PbtA, Torchbearer / BW, White Wolf Games, heck even Warhammer has such sentiments in its GM sections, ... and not always played in a mechanical optimization powerhouse way that subverts the designers apparent intent ... clearly not everyone is necessarily anti PCvPC, especially if it's advancing interesting "story".


Right. And those are games I'm not fond of. But I fully accept that it's a personal taste matter rather than an objective good/bad issue. I'll just not play those games (or only play them wrong).

After a certain amount of consistently being warned of the "dangers" of having badwrong fun by the White Wolf snobs (company and fans both), I ended up deriving a good deal of perverse contrarian glee out of playing "superheroes with fangs" and then posting about it on their Usenet channel, forums, etc.

A game designer has to realize that the only way to ensure that no one ever uses their creation "wrong" is to never let it out into the world.

But then, despite a lot of talk about "telling stories", nothing in the actual WW products made them primarily about telling stories, there were no actual "narrative" mechanics or "author stance" mechanics. Systems that actually have those, that are mechanically optimized for "author stance", are systems I'm just not going to use. And games that are based on ginning up "drama" for the sake of drama itself, are also games I'm just not going to play.

Tanarii
2019-01-20, 09:44 PM
I hear what you're saying Max, and I also don't like in-RPG diatribes about One True Way roleplaying / story, especially from a author of a system that doesn't implicitly support it, is horribly balanced, and their vision of roleplaying is apparently supposed to be the balancing factor. But that's not my point here. For once. :smallwink:

NorthernPhoenix
2019-01-20, 11:09 PM
Honestly, I've never seen resistance from my new players to talking (even taking breaks to try to talk people out of a fight) during combat. It's only the "grognards" (I joke here, but the experienced D&D'ers) who get in the "initiative = fight to the death" mode.

People who have come into the hobby through "actual play" shows are generally better about it, I find.

The Jack
2019-01-21, 06:47 AM
But then, despite a lot of talk about "telling stories", nothing in the actual WW products made them primarily about telling stories, there were no actual "narrative" mechanics or "author stance" mechanics.

Werewolf plays like DnD where you go on missions to fight the big bad wyrm and you can solve every problem by murdering it.
Vampire... Cultivating backgrounds is important and lends itself very strongly to narrative. Most of the game is gaining and losing backgrounds, making friends and trying not to upset too many people above your weight class. There are virtually no magic items, but getting a big gun, a load of cash or a new minion might be nice. Resources is the best stat and generation can only be improved by cannibalism... I'd say there's a strong leaning towards narrative there.

Dominate (You communicate, People obey) is an absolute delight to use in or for combat. it's the best discipline. It's powerful, it's fun, it's versatile and rewards creativity. It's not a must-have like auspex is, but the best powers are early on in the discipline.

I don't think trenchcoats and katanas is a bad way to play, it's certainly got it's fun, but you're missing out on a lot of good things if you do it that way.
I've played with a GM that did the opposite extreme; Diablerie was an irredeemable sin that would have significant mental side effects and every ghoul would be a nightmare to manage and every enemy apparently had some deep ties to me... Which wavered between 'this is so engrossing' and 'this is bull****, why would this happen?'
Also he really liked Bahari. When I ran for him, he'd fall hook-line and sinker for any involvement with them. They're not a very productive bunch.

Satinavian
2019-01-21, 07:17 AM
Werewolf plays like DnD where you go on missions to fight the big bad wyrm and you can solve every problem by murdering it.That is why i always thought werewolf was the weakest line.

I don't think trenchcoats and katanas is a bad way to play, it's certainly got it's fun, but you're missing out on a lot of good things if you do it that way.
Playing superheroes with fangs and the game revolving mostly about backgrounds and politics are not mutually exclusive.

The Jack
2019-01-21, 07:48 AM
Of course not, I myself increase the rate of XP players get. They're not exclusive, but I find that a lot of players or characters sacrifice one for the other. Rabble and Gangrel players are hugely famous for not-engaging with background cultivation. They just wanna knock heads together and make characters that don't need to give a care about their own position.

Werewolf... you can deal with the garou nation having some very ****ty politics and be that difficult character that's a gay metis litany breaker with progressive values. I ran for a guy who just wanted to play a reluctant silver fang who just wanted to appreciate domestic life and avoid the horrid war (I don't advise you let this happen) but I think that werewolf works best when you all embrace how much of a regressive traditionalist you can be and all singlemindedly dedicate yourselves to murdering the wyrm in ideally ironic fashion.


I Liked that one time I played a brujah/salubri combat munchkin, and I've played the full gamut of characters, but I freaking love dominate. One time, four US soldiers tried to apprehend us in a parking lot, I opened up a combat scene by telling a soldier to kill his friend, he collapsed in anguish from the act and the other players killed the rest. Half the combat was solved with just a few words.
Most of the time though, I'd rather just send people in to fight without actually needing to step foot in myself. Powergame good social skills and you never need to fight.

Max_Killjoy
2019-01-21, 07:56 AM
Werewolf plays like DnD where you go on missions to fight the big bad wyrm and you can solve every problem by murdering it.
Vampire... Cultivating backgrounds is important and lends itself very strongly to narrative. Most of the game is gaining and losing backgrounds, making friends and trying not to upset too many people above your weight class. There are virtually no magic items, but getting a big gun, a load of cash or a new minion might be nice. Resources is the best stat and generation can only be improved by cannibalism... I'd say there's a strong leaning towards narrative there.

Dominate (You communicate, People obey) is an absolute delight to use in or for combat. it's the best discipline. It's powerful, it's fun, it's versatile and rewards creativity. It's not a must-have like auspex is, but the best powers are early on in the discipline.

I don't think trenchcoats and katanas is a bad way to play, it's certainly got it's fun, but you're missing out on a lot of good things if you do it that way.
I've played with a GM that did the opposite extreme; Diablerie was an irredeemable sin that would have significant mental side effects and every ghoul would be a nightmare to manage and every enemy apparently had some deep ties to me... Which wavered between 'this is so engrossing' and 'this is bull****, why would this happen?'
Also he really liked Bahari. When I ran for him, he'd fall hook-line and sinker for any involvement with them. They're not a very productive bunch.

Dominate's all-or-nothing design, where the tiniest success was more than enough to totally screw the victim, and two actual defenses -- better Generation, Iron Will merit -- were total no-sells of the entire Discipline, was one of the hallmarks of Vampire's really really iffy game design.

As for the rest, our campaigns featured a lot of backgrounds, connections, politics, etc, and TONS of role-playing; Diablerie was a dire and risky step to take; etc. But it was never about the stupid angst-burger or agonizing over vampirism or "personal horror".

The point, however, was that the MECHANICS of the game didn't favor either or any playstyle, and certainly weren't "story" mechanics. They were purely about combat and powers and resolution of discrete tasks.

The Jack
2019-01-21, 08:11 AM
Dominate's all-or-nothing design, where the tiniest success was more than enough to totally screw the victim, and two actual defenses -- better Generation, Iron Will merit -- were total no-sells of the entire Discipline, was one of the hallmarks of Vampire's really really iffy game design.

As for the rest, our campaigns featured a lot of backgrounds, connections, politics, etc, and TONS of role-playing; Diablerie was a dire and risky step to take; etc. But it was never about the stupid angst-burger or agonizing over vampirism or "personal horror".

The point, however, was that the MECHANICS of the game didn't favor either or any playstyle, and certainly weren't "story" mechanics. They were purely about combat and powers and resolution of discrete tasks.

In V20, dominate works by degree of successes, with 1 being 'permissible if it's not out of the way for me' and 5 being 'IT WILL BE DONE MY LORD'. And those protective measures can be beaten by good target selection.
Presence however is bull****.

the personal horror works to the detriment of the political horror. "the secret elite of the world are all miserable and want to kill themselves all the time" doesn't work on any level.

On the topic, I think I prefer talking my way to success over killing everything, unless I'm pretty sure killing someone's a much better move. DnD isn't great for that playstyle, because you're usually fighting monsters.

If It's appropriate for the game, I love a -least risk, most reward playstyle- and talking is very good for that.

Max_Killjoy
2019-01-21, 10:00 AM
In V20, dominate works by degree of successes, with 1 being 'permissible if it's not out of the way for me' and 5 being 'IT WILL BE DONE MY LORD'. And those protective measures can be beaten by good target selection.
Presence however is bull****.

the personal horror works to the detriment of the political horror. "the secret elite of the world are all miserable and want to kill themselves all the time" doesn't work on any level.

On the topic, I think I prefer talking my way to success over killing everything, unless I'm pretty sure killing someone's a much better move. DnD isn't great for that playstyle, because you're usually fighting monsters.

If It's appropriate for the game, I love a -least risk, most reward playstyle- and talking is very good for that.

All of my experience is with oWoD products, 1st through 2nd revised. Between the scattering of my long-time gaming group to other places and other life priorities, and utter disappointment in the nWoD products, that's around the time we stopped keeping up with White Wolf or whoever their various successors were.

Presence was certainly another example of the same issues as Dominate.


My longest-running character literally wore a trenchcoat, carried swords (NOT KATANAS) that she KNEW how to use, was a celerity-hound -- and this was widely known. And as a sort of unofficial Scourge and peacekeeper, with little political ambition and a lot of investigative skill, they also knew that once she was involved things had "gotten real"... if you actually did kill her you were bound to draw all sorts of attention from those curious as to her fate. Critically, however, this actually prevented more fights than it started, because most resident vamps didn't want to risk it.

But that campaign took place in a city that was repeatedly embroiled in conflict both before and during the campaign, due to the Sabbat, werewolves, and at least one internecine revolt.

Tanarii
2019-01-21, 11:01 AM
Honestly, I've never seen resistance from my new players to talking (even taking breaks to try to talk people out of a fight) during combat. It's only the "grognards" (I joke here, but the experienced D&D'ers) who get in the "initiative = fight to the death" mode.
There's usually a few reasons for that. Any grognard has already done everything that can to prevent combat before it started. If initiative has been rolled, it's long past the time of talking. If players want to capture someone, or even other things that need advance planning like viable retreat tactics, they have to plan it well in advance of initiative.

Second of all, and far more importantly, stopping a fight once it's started either requires powerful subduing magic, or all living enemies to simultaneously agree to stop fighting. The latter in particular can mean a PC is throwing their action away if they try to stop a fight just by talking, as some of their fellow PCs and remaining enemies still attack on their turns, drawing the ones that stopped back in. It's possible to do, but usually you have to have whittled down the enemy a lot, and other Pcs have to be in agreement to stop.

Then there's the common player attitude, that leaving behind surviviors is totally insane. I recently had a time when a player grappled a single surviving enemy, threatened them into surrender, and after they spilled the beans another player stabbed them in back finishing them off. Over the years, I've had multiple times when one player told off another player for trying to capture an enemy instead of kill them all.

Now if you allow pseudo-telepathic PCs, or extended conversations during a fight, or any number of other things that people allow to sneak in out of game coordination, then players may be able to pull it off occasionally. If they think it's not crazy to try in the first place.

Quertus
2019-01-21, 11:42 AM
leaving behind surviviors is totally insane.

I once had my character cast Wall of Force to keep a lone goblin from escaping.

Survivors bring reinforcements. They plot revenge. And they don't add to your undead army. :smalltongue:

Talakeal
2019-01-21, 02:35 PM
That's their right. Participationism is not mandatory.

Just because someone has the right to do something doesn't mean that it isn't rude.

If someone works hard on something for you the polite thing to do is to try and make the best of it even if it isn't your favorite.

Obviously just how rude it is varies based on motivation, scope, and frequency, and it isn't a black and white issue, but if you are interrupting every monologue and sabotaging your group by doing so every time on principle you are a very big problem player as you are spoiling your DMs effort, the rest of the groups fun, and sabotaging the rest of your parties chance of success all because you can't get over yourself for five minutes every few sessions.


Now, if the DM monologues all the time, or you are playing a compulsively violent character, or if the entire party hates listening to monologues then this is something you need to actually talk about with the DM rather than just spoiling things in character.

Xuc Xac
2019-01-21, 03:27 PM
It's only a monologue if you don't talk back.

Florian
2019-01-21, 04:05 PM
But then, despite a lot of talk about "telling stories", nothing in the actual WW products made them primarily about telling stories, there were no actual "narrative" mechanics or "author stance" mechanics. Systems that actually have those, that are mechanically optimized for "author stance", are systems I'm just not going to use. And games that are based on ginning up "drama" for the sake of drama itself, are also games I'm just not going to play.

Max, when it comes to this particular topic, I'm extremely surprised how dense you can be at times.

The creators of WoD had a certain vision, but only limited knowledge on how to accomplish that, defaulting to the tools they knew would work somehow. They saw setting and fluff as primary, in their mind making sure that starting the Storyteller chapter of VtM 1st with the sentence to ignore all rules in favor of those two as being enough to handle the system side of things.

I think it´s fair to say that if they had our knowledge back then, the WoD system(s) would have looked very different.

The Jack
2019-01-21, 04:53 PM
Yeah but then you got those v5 bastards and they couldn't be further from....
I'll stop myself.

I think, with talk-heavy games, is that a lot of players aren't that great socially. Therefor the game is better when they can complete simple objectives and move on. If you make it more about talk, they're going to feel like they're being pushed out of their depth.

Psikerlord
2019-01-21, 11:37 PM
I love a bit of combat banter, whether it's the monsters or the players or both. Good stuff! Great banter can turn a dreary fight into an awesome one.

Quertus
2019-01-22, 12:30 AM
If someone works hard on something for you the polite thing to do is to try and make the best of it even if it isn't your favorite.

I used the word "Participationism" on purpose, to indicate that this stance could easily be interpreted as pro railroading.

But, then, I'm a **** of the mind that, if the GM isn't taking their cues from the players, then the players should give stronger cues - like ordering out for pizza.

As much as I may think that your players are wrong minded, I think that they have done a good job of making their preferences abundantly clear.

Talakeal
2019-01-22, 09:29 AM
I used the word "Participationism" on purpose, to indicate that this stance could easily be interpreted as pro railroading.

But, then, I'm a **** of the mind that, if the GM isn't taking their cues from the players, then the players should give stronger cues - like ordering out for pizza.

As much as I may think that your players are wrong minded, I think that they have done a good job of making their preferences abundantly clear.


Well, two of them have. Of my five players, two have said they are against the DM talking (ever), one enjoys the DM talking, and two have stated no opinions.

Now, imo, my fun counts for as much as anyone else at the table, and I enjoy dialogue, so if my opinion is counted the group is kind of evenly balanced, which I think justifies some talking during combat. Note, however, that I actually do very little dialogue in combat, and even "monologues" are a rare occasion, maybe once every six months, to the point where the last group I was in nicknamed me "Scott" after Dr. Evil's son in Austin Powers who just wants to shoot prisoners rather than explaining plans to them and then leaving them alone in a complicated death trap.
I do have information beaten out of people fairly often though as it allows some social / investigative success to come from a combat.

I also am kind of suspect about the motivations of the two players and don't really think the issue is talking during combat. I think one of the players is a hack and slash player who doesn't like dialogue at all, and certainly doesn't want it ruining his combat slashy time, and the other is a spotlight hog who loves dialogue so long as he is the only one talking, and I think they are using the whole "I / nobody enjoys dialogue during combat" bit to make it look like the DM is the one being unreasonable.


But yes, a railroaded session is (typically) better than a boring session. If you don't like what the DM has prepared you should definitely work on communication for the future, but just refusing to participate is not going to make anyone happy.

Quertus
2019-01-22, 11:55 AM
Well, two of them have. Of my five players, two have said they are against the DM talking (ever), one enjoys the DM talking, and two have stated no opinions.

Now, imo, my fun counts for as much as anyone else at the table, and I enjoy dialogue, so if my opinion is counted the group is kind of evenly balanced, which I think justifies some talking during combat. Note, however, that I actually do very little dialogue in combat, and even "monologues" are a rare occasion, maybe once every six months, to the point where the last group I was in nicknamed me "Scott" after Dr. Evil's son in Austin Powers who just wants to shoot prisoners rather than explaining plans to them and then leaving them alone in a complicated death trap.
I do have information beaten out of people fairly often though as it allows some social / investigative success to come from a combat.

I also am kind of suspect about the motivations of the two players and don't really think the issue is talking during combat. I think one of the players is a hack and slash player who doesn't like dialogue at all, and certainly doesn't want it ruining his combat slashy time, and the other is a spotlight hog who loves dialogue so long as he is the only one talking, and I think they are using the whole "I / nobody enjoys dialogue during combat" bit to make it look like the DM is the one being unreasonable.


But yes, a railroaded session is (typically) better than a boring session. If you don't like what the DM has prepared you should definitely work on communication for the future, but just refusing to participate is not going to make anyone happy.

No. no no no no no.

Just because half the table likes Sally playing in the nude does not make it OK to ignore those who actively dislike it.

This isn't a vote.

This is "this behavior actively hurts the fun of some of the players". This is not "majority rule", this is "minority rights".

Now, if you can't have fun without having NPCs talk, and some players can't have fun with NPCs that talk, well, then you are at an impasse, and you cannot enjoy a game together.

So, you need to determine whether this is a requirement for both sides, and, if it is, define that requirement to see if a compromise can be reached. If it is a requirement for both sides, and there is no length, type, or style of communication that both sides are comfortable with, then you cannot have fun together in a game.

-----

On railroading... turning "the paladin must assassinate the good and rightful king" into a planning session is a much more productive use of time than continuing down those rails. And, yes, I speak from experience on this one. :smallannoyed:

Talakeal
2019-01-22, 12:40 PM
No. no no no no no.

Just because half the table likes Sally playing in the nude does not make it OK to ignore those who actively dislike it.

This isn't a vote.

This is "this behavior actively hurts the fun of some of the players". This is not "majority rule", this is "minority rights".

Now, if you can't have fun without having NPCs talk, and some players can't have fun with NPCs that talk, well, then you are at an impasse, and you cannot enjoy a game together.

So, you need to determine whether this is a requirement for both sides, and, if it is, define that requirement to see if a compromise can be reached. If it is a requirement for both sides, and there is no length, type, or style of communication that both sides are comfortable with, then you cannot have fun together in a game.


To me this seems to be the complete opposite of minority rights. Saying that because one of the six players at the table doesn't like something than nobody else can partake of it is, in my view, a matter of oppression.

This is especially true when you have hypocritical demands such as my player who talks so much that all of the other players want to stuff a sock in his mouth yet has a standing rule that he never allows an NPC to talk.

If we removed every aspect of the game that "hurt the fun" for one of the players there would be hardly anything left.

Far better, imo, to adjust the ratios of each activity based on the enjoyment of the group as a whole, meaning a collection of individuals as well as the sum of its parts.


On railroading... turning "the paladin must assassinate the good and rightful king" into a planning session is a much more productive use of time than continuing down those rails. And, yes, I speak from experience on this one. :smallannoyed:

Yeah, I wouldn't participate in an activity that forced me to ignore more characterization either.

But. to use my meal analogy, that would be the equivalent of a vegetarian refusing to eat your steak dinner, when I was more talking about refusing to even try it because it was cooked medium and you prefer rare.

The initial comment I was responding to was about a PC who didn't like to listen to villain monologues so he just shot the bad guy and derailed the campaign and ended up TPKing the party as a result. To me that is the equivalent of throwing a tantrum; if the player in question actually did it for good in character reasons (they believed the bad guy was stalling for time or had an established background of being lectured triggering episodes of PTSD) then the same act would add to the story rather than hurt it.

Koo Rehtorb
2019-01-22, 01:15 PM
Compromise is annoying and unpleasant for everyone. Just play with people who like the same things you do.

If I actually found someone who said something like "I hate dialogue in combat stop doing it" I would be bewildered, and then stop playing with them, because they're nuts.

kamikasei
2019-01-22, 01:21 PM
To me this seems to be the complete opposite of minority rights. Saying that because one of the six players at the table doesn't like something than nobody else can partake of it is, in my view, a matter of oppression.
"Oppression" is a wildly disproportionate word to use in this context.

In general, someone's interest in not having to deal with something they hate outweighs other people's interest in including something they like; or more generally, need outweighs want. Quertus pointed out that you haven't described in-combat dialogue as necessary to your enjoyment of the game, while for your player its absence seems to be necessary to his. If you're ordering a shared pizza, one person who throws up if they so much as smell fish has more need for accommodation than the rest of you thinking you'd kinda like anchovies tonight.

If we removed every aspect of the game that "hurt the fun" for one of the players there would be hardly anything left.
If all your group's tastes summed together include multiple simultaneous must-haves and dealbreakers, that mostly sounds like you shouldn't be playing together. It also sounds pretty unlikely.

From your posts, it sounds like in reality you think several of your players exaggerate their dislikes to turn things they don't much enjoy into dealbreakers so they can dishonestly control discussion around the game. That... also sounds like you shouldn't be playing together.

The Jack
2019-01-22, 01:23 PM
Let's be frank;
How ****ty are your players?

All-good tables aren't in great supply. I've never played a game liking everyone at the table without that table also being too damn small. Even people you like can be terrible at the table. It's sadly a niche hobby and we have to make do.

It's good to work with the players, but some players are no good. You don't need to work with all your players. You can try to correct their course, you can try talking to them, but you're the one with the power in the games. I suppose if they've got the tables support, they're in the right, but in that case you aught to GM for new people who might appreciate you instead. Their enjoyment should be your enjoyment. Their enjoyment shouldn't be your expense.

Part of my thoughts is that maybe you're not good at acting, so they're not a fan of you acting. That's understandable; I've been with gm's who've made me wince with that stuff. But the way your players have voiced their opinion is so crude and rude that I can only take your side.

Gravitron5000
2019-01-22, 02:58 PM
My friend then told that nobody likes dialogue in combat.

Well, your player is objectively wrong, as one example disproves the absolute, and I would say that "Battle is Better with Banter"™


"Oppression" is a wildly disproportionate word to use in this context.

Maybe so, but perfectly inline when refuting discussion of majority rules and minority rights.

Telwar
2019-01-22, 09:57 PM
The only time I don't like NPC dialogue in combat is if the DM tries to pull a "hey you're in boxed text and therefore surprised even though everyone had swords drawn and was ready to move NYAH" move.

Talking normally and then bam a gun in someone's face? That's fine. Talking in a tense fight with a villain you're there to fight? Fine. But not the "oh and he/she/it gets a surprise round on you."

No, I haven't had that happen before, not at all. Why do you ask?

Talakeal
2019-01-23, 08:14 AM
"Oppression" is a wildly disproportionate word to use in this context.

In general, someone's interest in not having to deal with something they hate outweighs other people's interest in including something they like; or more generally, need outweighs want. Quertus pointed out that you haven't described in-combat dialogue as necessary to your enjoyment of the game, while for your player its absence seems to be necessary to his. If you're ordering a shared pizza, one person who throws up if they so much as smell fish has more need for accommodation than the rest of you thinking you'd kinda like anchovies tonight.

If all your group's tastes summed together include multiple simultaneous must-haves and dealbreakers, that mostly sounds like you shouldn't be playing together. It also sounds pretty unlikely.

From your posts, it sounds like in reality you think several of your players exaggerate their dislikes to turn things they don't much enjoy into dealbreakers so they can dishonestly control discussion around the game. That... also sounds like you shouldn't be playing together.

I agree that opression is over selling it, but then again so was comparing in combat quips to minority rights, which was the point I was responding to.

There is a world of difference between throwing up and having to ignore a cheesy one liner a couple of times a session. Now, if it was something that was actually psychologically painful like including graphic seens of sex or violence with a traumatized or sensitive individual in the group or the subject of someones phobia that might be a better analogy, but we arent.

Yeah, if it absolutely ruined the game for one player and the rest of the players were ambivilent about it I would probably cut it, but that doesnt seem to be the case. Warlord is the only person who actively seems to hate it, most every one else seems to enjoy it. At my group I have one player who dislikes it, but it isnt a game breaker for him and hasnt even mentioned it in decades of gaming until now, one player who likes it, and one player who is fine with it as long as he is the only one doing the talking, so I dont know why we are going to hyperbolic examples.

icefractal
2019-01-24, 09:39 PM
Disliking dialog in combat is not an allergy, or a phobia, it's just a preference. Now of course a player is free to leave the game if having dialog in combat really ruins it for them, but IME that's unlikely, and not something the whole group needs to be limited by.

Going with the food analogy, this isn't "I know you're allergic to anchovies, but we got them on all the pizzas." It's "I know you think pineapple on pizza is gross, but it's only on one pizza of three - just get slices from the others," and the player is saying "Ew, I don't even want to look at other people eating it, I demand you throw it away."

Talakeal
2019-01-27, 12:20 PM
So we had another session, and I think I was correct in my initial assessment.

The player who made the initial statement about no monologuing easily talked more in combat than every other character, PC and NPC, combined, at one point even stopping to sing to his opponent.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-27, 12:27 PM
So we had another session, and I think I was correct in my initial assessment.

The player who made the initial statement about no monologuing easily talked more in combat than every other character, PC and NPC, combined, at one point even stopping to sing to his opponent.

So standard ego-centric behavior. He (assuming here) doesn't want others to talk during combat. Hit him with a silence effect and see how he reacts.

The Jack
2019-01-27, 03:08 PM
^I love it. If only real life were so good

Talakeal
2019-01-27, 05:00 PM
So I talked to my players about the issue, and they said that they get frustrated about how I monologue constantly.

I was kind of surprised by this, as I rarely have scripted dialogue, and when I do it is almost never longer than 2-3 sentences. A villain actually giving a speech that I would classify as a monologue is typically a very rare once or twice a campaign event.

It turns out, my PCs have a different definition of monologue than I do.


They consider a monologue to be any time that exposition is delivered through an NPC, even if it is in a direct response to the PCs question, and that they are sick of all the "monologuing" that occurs when one of the other players has a conversation with an NPC or interrogates a prisoner.

Xuc Xac
2019-01-27, 06:04 PM
Get a dictionary and beat them with it.

BreaktheStatue
2019-01-27, 09:22 PM
So I talked to my players about the issue, and they said that they get frustrated about how I monologue constantly.

I was kind of surprised by this, as I rarely have scripted dialogue, and when I do it is almost never longer than 2-3 sentences. A villain actually giving a speech that I would classify as a monologue is typically a very rare once or twice a campaign event.

It turns out, my PCs have a different definition of monologue than I do.


They consider a monologue to be any time that exposition is delivered through an NPC, even if it is in a direct response to the PCs question, and that they are sick of all the "monologuing" that occurs when one of the other players has a conversation with an NPC or interrogates a prisoner.

Sorry, but as described, it sounds like your players are dumb. If the pet peeve is "The DM is talking," I don't understand how they expect to play a TTRPG.

In all seriousness, they should go play video games where you can just cut through that and get to the fighting.

KillianHawkeye
2019-01-27, 10:28 PM
Get a dictionary and beat them with it.

I second the motion. Let a vote be called! All in favor say "aye".

The Jack
2019-01-28, 12:32 AM
So, final query before the recomended 'kill them all, god will know his own' attitude; How do you talk to your players? Are you an exposition machine? Do you involve players when you explain things?

NPCs asking questions of the players which simulataniously inform the players of what's going on are good.

D'ya come from the south? Where you all from? Been to Ceviv before? What do you eat there if you don't eat jellied insect? That sounds disgusting, do you live in sin? Well, don't you think you should be going back the way you came with that kinda attitude, ever since the new sherriff took charge he's been locking sinners like you up to put into his gladiatorial porn spectacles...

Or something less completely idiotic, but is your dialogue natural and inclusive?

kamikasei
2019-01-28, 06:10 AM
Most charitably, they don't enjoy your in-character performances, and are very clumsily telling you that they're the type of players who prefer to describe what their characters do ("Tordek asks the innkeeper if there's been anything unusual happening lately." "The innkeeper mentions some travelers have had trouble with orc raiders on the roads.") rather than act it out ("I need a room for the night, a good meal, and as much ale as you can bring me. Any word on where an axe for hire might find paying work?" "Some of the traders who pass through here have lost goods to bandits. You might be able to get guard work with that halfling in the corner there."). Or they may be happy to speak in character themselves, among themselves, and to your NPCs, but not like you doing the same. It might be something you can adjust to, it might be a basic incompatibility.

(And the usual observation that seems pointless to include but negligent to omit: it kinda sounds like these players don't like or respect you very much, and you don't like or respect them very much, and maybe trying to have fun spending leisure time together is a losing proposition because you don't enjoy each other's company or have fun playing with each other?)

Florian
2019-01-28, 06:41 AM
Uh, what, we actually have to engage with your game world and you throw us free info there that we have to remember? No, pass, lets murderhobo someone.

Resileaf
2019-01-28, 09:57 AM
Next time your players talk to an NPC, look at them in the eye and don't say a word. If they don't like NPCs talking, never have any NPC respond to their queries.

Tanarii
2019-01-28, 10:46 AM
It turns out, my PCs have a different definition of monologue than I do.


They consider a monologue to be any time that exposition is delivered through an NPC, even if it is in a direct response to the PCs question, and that they are sick of all the "monologuing" that occurs when one of the other players has a conversation with an NPC or interrogates a prisoner.
Yeah, that kind of DM-delivered lengthy exposition-monologuing is super annoying, especially if it happens often. It breaks players right out of the game due to how unnatural it is, especially in a purported conversation, and if it's bad enough the information just sleets past them anyway. The only thing worse is super-descriptive flowery boxed-text style room descriptions.

If you want an example of excessive exposition-monologuing taken to an extreme, check out Classic D&D's Wrath of the Immortals adventure. Almost any 2e-era TSR module is a good example, but that one takes the cake.

Exposition should be shown not told. But since RPGs are a verbal communication medium, it means keeping your DM-communications simple and direct as possible. Don't try to be evocative with your descriptions, don't try to give a paragraph of exposition at once. Especially not in the middle of a conversation with an NPC.


In all seriousness, they should go play video games where you can just cut through that and get to the fighting.The goal should be for a DM not to be at all like an CRPG, where there's a paragraph of text between every single sentence thing the player supposedly says.

Pelle
2019-01-28, 11:01 AM
Exposition should be shown not told. But since RPGs are a verbal communication medium, it means keeping your DM-communications simple and direct as possible. Don't try to be evocative with your descriptions, don't try to give a paragraph of exposition at once. Especially not in the middle of a conversation with an NPC.

Not sure if you are talking past each other, but isn't "show, don't tell" talking in character as the npc instead of describing what he says? Instead of summarizing "the farmer doesn't seem to like soldiers" you talk in character "Those damn soldiers, always harassing normal folks!" and so on. It's been a goal of mine lately to speak more in character instead summarizing in third person, because of the whole "show, don't tell" mantra. To get people more invested by having the players interpret the situation themselves, instead of having the GM filter it for them. I'm quite surprised some players really don't like that.

Tanarii
2019-01-28, 11:12 AM
Not sure if you are talking past each other, but isn't "show, don't tell" talking in character as the npc instead of describing what he says?
That's one easy way to do it. Since normal people don't talk at length in a normal conversation. Unless they're conversation hogs / babblers, and guess what ... those kind of people get tuned out and mentally exhaust folks who interact with them.

Many GMs have a tendency to have their NPCs talk like they're circuit speakers or instructors, especially when they're trying to deliver exposition.

Pelle
2019-01-28, 11:38 AM
That's one easy way to do it. Since normal people don't talk at length in a normal conversation. Unless they're conversation hogs / babblers, and guess what ... those kind of people get tuned out and mentally exhaust folks who interact with them.

Many GMs have a tendency to have their NPCs talk like they're circuit speakers or instructors, especially when they're trying to deliver exposition.

I didn't get that impression from Tal, but if so, that would explain why the players don't like it...

Tanarii
2019-01-28, 11:46 AM
I didn't get that impression from Tal, but if so, that would explain why the players don't like it...
Good point. I may have been jumping to a conclusion based on the word "exposition" and previous experiences. Of course, I would never jump to a conclusion in an Internet forum.

icefractal
2019-01-28, 02:09 PM
That's one easy way to do it. Since normal people don't talk at length in a normal conversation. Asking someone for information isn't a normal conversation.

Let's say a group of PCs show up:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/313/18972750424_4bc44e33cb_b.jpg
And they ask me, a bystander NPC, what the Y2038 crisis is. So that they can solve it by hacking and/or kung-fu.

Well conveniently, I can answer that. But it's going to take more than a sentence. And they're probably not going to have anything relevant to say during the process, so it's going to be basically a monologue.

What, in your view, should I be saying instead? "Computer problem: time number too big!" and then have a target appear on their minimap?

Resileaf
2019-01-28, 02:15 PM
Well obviously, the campaign world you live in should not have any backstory that cannot be explained inside of a single sentence.

Tanarii
2019-01-28, 04:05 PM
Asking someone for information isn't a normal conversation.

Let's say a group of PCs show up:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/313/18972750424_4bc44e33cb_b.jpg
And they ask me, a bystander NPC, what the Y2038 crisis is. So that they can solve it by hacking and/or kung-fu.

Well conveniently, I can answer that. But it's going to take more than a sentence. And they're probably not going to have anything relevant to say during the process, so it's going to be basically a monologue.

What, in your view, should I be saying instead? "Computer problem: time number too big!" and then have a target appear on their minimap?
Thanks for summarizing why exposition is so terrible in RPGs so succinctly. For that matter, why most DM / PC interactions are.

Just skip it an make them quest givers that monologue the plot of the quest at the start of the session. It's a valid and far more honest way to approach that style of play.

icefractal
2019-01-28, 07:08 PM
Thanks for summarizing why exposition is so terrible in RPGs so succinctly. For that matter, why most DM / PC interactions are.

Just skip it an make them quest givers that monologue the plot of the quest at the start of the session. It's a valid and far more honest way to approach that style of play.
I'm ... not really sure what you mean? NPCs responding when PCs ask them questions is bad, but having non-interactive quest givers is ok? And "most GM/PC interactions" are bad? O_o

What does a "good" TTRPG experience look like for you? What are the reasons you'd choose one over a CRPG or a board game? Because it doesn't even sound like we're describing the same activity.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-28, 07:11 PM
I'm ... not really sure what you mean? NPCs responding when PCs ask them questions is bad, but having non-interactive quest givers is ok? And "most GM/PC interactions" are bad? O_o

What does a "good" TTRPG experience look like for you? What are the reasons you'd choose on over a CRPG or a board game? Because it doesn't even sound like we're describing remotely the same activity.

Yeah. With (talkative) NPCs only as initial quest givers (ie module-set-up), you drastically limit what you can do with the game. Basically to just old-school dungeon/site crawls, where everything is either fight or flee, never talk.

You lose:
* being able to research stuff as a player. Because no one and nothing will talk to you.
* all social skills/avenues/etc become useless. No need for a face!
* The loss of one entire side of the game. For many games (other than D&D), you lose the vast majority of it.

And all for what?

Psikerlord
2019-01-28, 11:49 PM
So I talked to my players about the issue, and they said that they get frustrated about how I monologue constantly.

I was kind of surprised by this, as I rarely have scripted dialogue, and when I do it is almost never longer than 2-3 sentences. A villain actually giving a speech that I would classify as a monologue is typically a very rare once or twice a campaign event.

It turns out, my PCs have a different definition of monologue than I do.


They consider a monologue to be any time that exposition is delivered through an NPC, even if it is in a direct response to the PCs question, and that they are sick of all the "monologuing" that occurs when one of the other players has a conversation with an NPC or interrogates a prisoner.

I feel your players would prefer a boardgame. Maybe try that instead?

Talakeal
2019-01-29, 10:22 AM
Honestly if I listened to my players I think they would prefer if I reduced social interactions to a simple charisma check which, if sucsesful, forces the NPC to give the PCs whatever they want or need, including information, whether or not the PCs know they need it or offer anything in return.


I feel your players would prefer a boardgame. Maybe try that instead?

Its really just the one player speaking for everybody.

He is a classic hack and slasher, but he does genuinly like my games and is a pretty decent min maxxer so he provides a lot of valuable feedback as a playtester.

The problem is that he really enjoys himself when he is getting to show off how powerful his character is, which usually means a combat that he is wining.

He told me that his ideal social situation would basically boil down to the DM stating "roll a difficulty X diplomacy check to get the NPC to do what you want."


Thanks for summarizing why exposition is so terrible in RPGs so succinctly. For that matter, why most DM / PC interactions are.

Just skip it an make them quest givers that monologue the plot of the quest at the start of the session. It's a valid and far more honest way to approach that style of play.

That souns like it would really limit the type of adventures that could be ran.

I am also not sure how the rest of my group would react to legitimate railroady monologues, probably not well.


I didn't get that impression from Tal, but if so, that would explain why the players don't like it...

I dont know, I do really enjoy the social aspects of the game, but I dont seem to talk as much as other DMs I have played under or listened to on APs.

I am also not the only DM the player in question has this complaint about.

Pelle
2019-01-29, 10:46 AM
I dont know, I do really enjoy the social aspects of the game, but I dont seem to talk as much as other DMs I have played under or listened to on APs.


It can be hard to accurately judge just how much you are talking, speaking from experience with other hobbies where I've had a teacher role. It might not seem much to you in the moment, but if you time yourself, you might be surprised the amount of time you spend. I like talking out social interactions of the game too, but at least try to get to the point.

And if it's just the one person complaining about it, acknowledge his opinion, but politely make him aware that there are other people to consider with different preferences in the group...

Quertus
2019-01-29, 11:47 AM
Show, don't tell.

Talakeal, I think that the solution to your problem may be to have the PCs see floating rocks, rather than have an NPC tell them about the floating rocks.

Also, to have your players each run a 1- shot, to show you what they think would make a good game. And then discuss as a group what people enjoy. Because, obviously, their definition of "monolog" leaves Mariam Webster rolling in their grave / their ability to communicate their preferences is both minimal and Epimethian.

Also, I sympathize - many of my players approach talking to my NPCs with caution, because my NPCs have their own goals, motives, and personalities, and aren't just a DC X diplomacy check, CR Y challenge.

FireJustice
2019-01-29, 12:02 PM
there's time for a good monologue or exposition.
but a good one, not a "I-am-so-in-love-with-my-own-creation-behold-while-i-smell-my-own-ass" monologue.

if a player say you tend to monologue, better watch out

that being said, talking in character in combat is fun and all, until you see that it bogs the game to a stop.
if every single time, people stop to quip about their attack or defense, jeeeez.
imagine that, 4 npcs vs 4 pcs, it will take forever every round.

also, also
Most of examples of good campy combat banter are 1v1 fights, try that as a group and it gets cringy

Talakeal
2019-01-29, 12:04 PM
Show, don't tell.

Talakeal, I think that the solution to your problem may be to have the PCs see floating rocks, rather than have an NPC tell them about the floating rocks.

Also, to have your players each run a 1- shot, to show you what they think would make a good game. And then discuss as a group what people enjoy. Because, obviously, their definition of "monolog" leaves Mariam Webster rolling in their grave / their ability to communicate their preferences is both minimal and Epimethian.

Also, I sympathize - many of my players approach talking to my NPCs with caution, because my NPCs have their own goals, motives, and personalities, and aren't just a DC X diplomacy check, CR Y challenge.

That would be very difficult. Not impossible, but pretty hard.

Keep in mind that his definition of monologue is answering the PCs questions, and he especially hates it when they are interrogating a defeated opponent. You know, standard action movie fair like demanding a beaten mook tell them where the hostsges are, or how ti find his master, or how to disarm the bomb, or even where he hid his treasure. In his mind a defeated NPC should be dead, and the idea of a defeated combatant talking turns his favorite part of the game, proving his superiority through combat, into his least favorite part of the game, asking questions.

The player also has a standing policy that he will NEVER cast a divination spell despite being the parties only caster even if the rest of the group begs him. I am not sure why, but he hates asking quesuons with a passion.


Now, at this point showing not telling is hard, because a lot of the questions they would ask would be about secret stuff or NPC motivations, and I dont know how to provide all of that information withiout burying the players in details about the world and an amount of clues that break both versimilitude and invalidate many of the players skill.

Talakeal
2019-01-29, 12:11 PM
there's time for a good monologue or exposition.
but a good one, not a "I-am-so-in-love-with-my-own-creation-behold-while-i-smell-my-own-ass" monologue.

if a player say you tend to monologue, better watch out

that being said, talking in character in combat is fun and all, until you see that it bogs the game to a stop.
if every single time, people stop to quip about their attack or defense, jeeeez.
imagine that, 4 npcs vs 4 pcs, it will take forever every round.

also, also
Most of examples of good campy combat banter are 1v1 fights, try that as a group and it gets cringy

They do say I monolgue, but apparently dont know what monologue means.

They think of the traditional villain monologue where the bad guy gives a long speech explaining the plot and assumed that "monologue" referred to a villain giving information thriugbdialogue rather than a long speech, and consider a sentance or two to be a monologue as a result.

I honestly dont know how I would feel about combat that was full of quips, as I have never seen it from either side of the screen.

My last session had five fights. Three of them had no dialogue on my part, one of them had an NPC say a single sentance to a PC, and one of them had an NPC say a single sentance to another NPC and then that NPC giving a five word response.

kamikasei
2019-01-29, 01:35 PM
Keep in mind that his definition of monologue is answering the PCs questions, and he especially hates it when they are interrogating a defeated opponent. You know, standard action movie fair like demanding a beaten mook tell them where the hostsges are, or how ti find his master, or how to disarm the bomb, or even where he hid his treasure. In his mind a defeated NPC should be dead, and the idea of a defeated combatant talking turns his favorite part of the game, proving his superiority through combat, into his least favorite part of the game, asking questions.

The player also has a standing policy that he will NEVER cast a divination spell despite being the parties only caster even if the rest of the group begs him. I am not sure why, but he hates asking quesuons with a passion.
This really makes me question whether the "valuable feedback" he provides by stress-testing your mechanics isn't outweighed by the distorting effect his involvement surely has on how the game is played. How much is he damaging the engagement of the other players and denying you their feedback because he's not letting them actually play the game in any real sense?

Also, why did you start out saying this was just him, then describe talking to your players as a whole and hearing what they thought, only to revert to saying it's just him speaking for everybody? How did that conversation actually go? Does he do all the talking? Have you talked to other players individually?

Talakeal
2019-01-29, 01:42 PM
This really makes me question whether the "valuable feedback" he provides by stress-testing your mechanics isn't outweighed by the distorting effect his involvement surely has on how the game is played. How much is he damaging the engagement of the other players and denying you their feedback because he's not letting them actually play the game in any real sense?

Also, why did you start out saying this was just him, then describe talking to your players as a whole and hearing what they thought, only to revert to saying it's just him speaking for everybody? How did that conversation actually go? Does he do all the talking? Have you talked to other players individually?

As for the first paragraph, I don't know.

I have not had the conversation with the group as a whole.

One player, the spotlight hog, made the initial statement during the game about how he doesnt allow NPCs to monologue.

I then discussed it with a second player, the hack and slash player, who made the statement that nobody likes dialogue in combat.

I then talked to a third player who thinks the first two are ridiculous and dialogue in my game is fine.

I then talked to the first two again and got a definition of monologuing from them and both of them told me that the third player is crazy as when he DMs he is even worse about "monologuing" than I am.

Reversefigure4
2019-01-29, 03:19 PM
Sounds like you have a couple of solutions, if your goal is to please that particular player style.

1) Summarise and remove NPC interactions and dialogue wherever possible. "You enter the town, look around, talk to some people, and the mayor tells you he'll pay 500gp to have the goblins cleared out of a cave to the south".

2) Run a game with only NPCs who are incapable to dialoguing. A wilderness exploration full of wild animals and exotic sights (no natives, though, or at least none that speak a common language), a dungeon delve against mindless undead, that sort of thing.

3) Are you settled on the system you're playing? Switching to something like 4e DnD might work well. You need the combats to have a lot of meat on them, and tactical options for providing different types of combat, because that's most of what the game will have. A social system more complicated that "Roll, get X thing" is meaningless here. (Yes, you're playtesting a system, but unless you're just playtesting the combat rules, you're not getting much more out of this group anyway).

Importantly, it's worth considering whether this style of game works for you. I couldn't run more than a couple of sessions of 'Bash the mindless undead' without losing interest in the campaign. You lose the ability to have any complex motivations for NPCs, or overarching plots that involve interacting with NPCs ("Collect the 7 McGuffins" can still work as a campaign plot). You'll need to compromise between what they want and what you want.

Pelle
2019-01-29, 03:36 PM
Show, don't tell.

Talakeal, I think that the solution to your problem may be to have the PCs see floating rocks, rather than have an NPC tell them about the floating rocks.


That's a good suggestion, but how would you show that the king is arrogant, the witch is greedy and the trolls are peaceful? I think doing that through dialogue would be as good and efficient way of exposition as any, but that would be derided as monologueing by these players. Just seems like an irrational hang up, and accomodating them by just telling them will be less interesting to me.

BreaktheStatue
2019-01-29, 04:26 PM
That would be very difficult. Not impossible, but pretty hard.

Keep in mind that his definition of monologue is answering the PCs questions, and he especially hates it when they are interrogating a defeated opponent. You know, standard action movie fair like demanding a beaten mook tell them where the hostsges are, or how ti find his master, or how to disarm the bomb, or even where he hid his treasure. In his mind a defeated NPC should be dead, and the idea of a defeated combatant talking turns his favorite part of the game, proving his superiority through combat, into his least favorite part of the game, asking questions.

The player also has a standing policy that he will NEVER cast a divination spell despite being the parties only caster even if the rest of the group begs him. I am not sure why, but he hates asking quesuons with a passion.

Now, at this point showing not telling is hard, because a lot of the questions they would ask would be about secret stuff or NPC motivations, and I dont know how to provide all of that information withiout burying the players in details about the world and an amount of clues that break both versimilitude and invalidate many of the players skill.

This player isn't looking for a DM, he's looking for a human RNG to validate his build. I personally wouldn't enjoy playing with that kind of person, but YMMV.

Jophiel
2019-01-30, 12:36 AM
I then talked to the first two again and got a definition of monologuing from them and both of them told me that the third player is crazy as when he DMs he is even worse about "monologuing" than I am.
Your next monologue should be "Hey, nothing personal but I don't think we're compatible for this game. Good luck finding a table that better meets your needs."

Talakeal
2019-01-30, 10:19 AM
Your next monologue should be "Hey, nothing personal but I don't think we're compatible for this game. Good luck finding a table that better meets your needs."

I am not quite sure about the first guy, we haven't been playing together long enough to make that call.

The second guy wasn't being disruptive or anything, he was just stating his preferance when asked. If he doesnt mind being at my table despite all the "monologueing" then I dont mind having him. Its just that he was stating his oppinions as if they were universal so I wanted to poll the forum to se if that was true and to see if I needed to adjust my DMing style accordingly.

KillianHawkeye
2019-01-30, 12:05 PM
Well someone at your table is clearly a terrible person and I'm pretty sure it's not you, Talakeal.

Jophiel
2019-01-30, 01:41 PM
I am not quite sure about the first guy, we haven't been playing together long enough to make that call.

The second guy wasn't being disruptive or anything, he was just stating his preferance when asked. If he doesnt mind being at my table despite all the "monologueing" then I dont mind having him.
If you have a guy or two giving you crap about actually roleplaying your NPCs and you (I assume) want to roleplay your NPCs then there's an issue. You can either set aside how you want to run your game to make these guys happy or suggest that at least one of them would be happier at another table because you're not going to make the game a random number affair for every interaction. I personally feel that it's the DM's prerogative to say (within reason, of course) "This is how I run my games; if you feel you're compatible with this then you're welcome to join me". Enough effort, and often expense, goes into running a game that I plan to enjoy myself as well and I'm not going to have someone bulldoze encounters and tell me that I'm not allowed to talk, just roll monster attack dice for him. And, from your description, we're not talking about five minute sermons or exposition here but rather just... roleplaying.

If his play style is such that you're not having fun then you owe it to yourself to excuse him from the game. He can find another with a DM who also just wants to roll dice and record hit points.

Souju
2019-02-01, 02:34 PM
The one thing that perplexes me about talking in combat...

Players say "I attack him as soon as he opens his mouth..."

You're already attacking him. That's why you're in combat...