PDA

View Full Version : The value of scripted monologues



Douche
2019-03-02, 08:41 AM
Every so often, a prewritten campaign will include a scene where a quest giving NPC has a carrot/stick, and he'll deliver his entire speech before disappearing without giving the PCs a chance to respond or question him. A few times I would read through and be like "screw that, I'll just run this as a roleplaying encounter, reading this whole monologue is wack and immersion breaking"

I'll give you two examples: in my homebrew campaign (which is based on Arcanum), the story is set into motion by an NPC dying, and with his dying breath he gives the PCs a ring telling them to "find the boy" which gives them this mystery to solve and get into the main plot. I've started that campaign several times - the first time, the guy died in front of the PC and the PC tried to heal him so she could ask him to elaborate (which would ruin the mystery, lol). The second time, the guy gives the ring to the PCs telling them to keep it safe and find the boy because he's being chased by a specter - the PCs tried to rescue him from the specter. The third time, I decided to put the whole thing into "cutscene mode" where the guy is already dying and gives the ring to them and then his life fades, then the PCs can start roleplaying after he's already dead.

The other example is in Age of Worms which I just started running. There's a part in the first chapter where you need to open a door, the only means of opening it is on the other side of the door. Lucky for you, there's a ghost who will do it if you help him first. In the book, it has about 2 paragraphs of monologue which explain this, and then the ghost fades away. I took this as stage direction that I could improvise on, choosing to instead roleplay it out - the PCs took that as an opportunity to sequence break, promising to do the thing if he opens the door first. Can't risk them deciding not to because his "side quest" is actually the hook for the main plot. I thought it would allow them to ask more questions and get some higher immersion, but what it actually led to was opening the door for them weaseling their way out of a chore. Having the ghost disappear means there's no opportunity for debate - they either do the quest or they don't get the door open.

Anyway I just thought this was a good piece of info to share. DMing makes you think that every encounter should be maximum interactive, and railroading should be avoided at all costs... But sometimes allowing for that interactivity creates a situation where you're forced to just say no, otherwise things would get derailed, moreso when it comes to moving the main plot along.

Koo Rehtorb
2019-03-02, 10:00 AM
Design plots in better ways and this isn't an issue.

Yora
2019-03-02, 10:52 AM
When the game can get "derailed" then it's on rails.

I'm willing to go along with it if the other players and GMs are enjoying themselves. But I think a campaign should have no script. If nothing is required to happen, then the players can actually do what they want, not what the GM demands them to do.

Quertus
2019-03-02, 10:56 AM
Design plots in better ways and this isn't an issue.

Lol, that was going to be my commentary, too. :smallwink:

The only way to get to the main quest is to help a ghost? **** that, ghosts are undead, I'm going to destroy him add him to my army of the undead.

The only way way through the door is via a ghost? Really? The door, walls, ceiling, and floor are all made of some indestructible material? OK, fine, I'll Mindrape peasants such that they beloved that their only, most desperate desire in life is to open that door for me, and keep killing them until one comes back as a ghost, willing to help me.

Dumb rails are dumb.

Darth Ultron
2019-03-02, 01:10 PM
Every so often, a prewritten campaign will include a scene where a quest giving NPC has a carrot/stick, and he'll deliver his entire speech before disappearing without giving the PCs a chance to respond or question him. A few times I would read through and be like "screw that, I'll just run this as a roleplaying encounter, reading this whole monologue is wack and immersion breaking"

Well, prewriten stuff...even more so published prewritten stuff has the huge problem of the information dump. The writer has to tell the information somehow. And really the scripted monologues or text is the only way to go. Just about all fiction uses exposition for this very reason.

Of course though, in a live game with people right there, you don't 'need' to do the scripted monologues. You can have a role playing encounter and interaction and all that.

Sure, you could have an NPC say something and run, but you don't have to. The NPC could answer a couple questions or the NPC could simply not want to say any more.




Anyway I just thought this was a good piece of info to share. DMing makes you think that every encounter should be maximum interactive, and railroading should be avoided at all costs... But sometimes allowing for that interactivity creates a situation where you're forced to just say no, otherwise things would get derailed, moreso when it comes to moving the main plot along.

It should not matter too much if an encounter is static or interactive: A story plot moves forward no matter what the PCs do(unless they do something extreme like blow up a city).


When the game can get "derailed" then it's on rails.

I'm willing to go along with it if the other players and GMs are enjoying themselves. But I think a campaign should have no script. If nothing is required to happen, then the players can actually do what they want, not what the GM demands them to do.

A random campaign with no script can be fun for some, but a lot of players like much more structure with everything making logical sense. Even more so, for everything to make sense in-game. A good game, with an attentive and active DM can't be ''derailed'', even if the players go for the extreme of making the game vs the DM and do everything the can to derail the ''DMs game".

MoiMagnus
2019-03-02, 02:10 PM
I find that writting prescripted monologue, or dialogue with small PC interraction, to be a very good exercice when writting a NPC.
It forces me to go trough its motivations, the way he present it, what he want to hide or show, how he talk, ...
It allows me to check if I didn't missed any information, unaswered question, and ponder what info is needed to be given to the PCs and what is just relevant if the PCs care about.

However, reading them (or reading pre-written ones), doesn't really work as well as "video game cut scenes". So don't do that unless you have a very good reason to do so. Using the content of the monologue in a dialogue with PCs works better, but try not to info-dump stuff if they don't ask questions about it (and keep it short).

Slipperychicken
2019-03-03, 11:27 AM
At the end of the day you need the PCs to have actual motivations to do the main questline, and also you need to convey why it matters.

I'd probably just make the NPC/ghost be a PC's relative, so they have a clear reason to follow up on it. For the healing, have him die before the PCs get there, but have written a note explaining what he knows. Something like "I'm fading fast and don't have time to write everything out, but you need do this quest or else [region_name] will fall into ruin, [NPC_name] will tell you more when you show him my ring, kthanks love you son, see you in the spirit realm". Or if you want the PCs to be able to heal him, have him not know plot-breaking information, and maybe give them some handy tips or clarification if they save his life.

Also, I find that using some pre-scripted dialogue segments can keep me on-track during sessions. It helps me avoid mischaracterizing NPCs, making plot-holes, getting important details wrong, or accidentally revealing things which I didn't want the PCs to know yet. Usually I'll just insert the scripted line into an otherwise free conversation, and make a half-decent segue into it.

Over-reliance on non-interactive cutscenes (or only nominally-interactive ones) is a clear sign of poor writing. Players who grow accustomed to being handled in this manner find themselves with degraded agency and creativity in play, doing things more to "follow the plot" or stay in line rather than playing their characters in a fun or interesting manner.

JeenLeen
2019-03-05, 11:40 AM
In the games I run and play in (same group), we tend to have an overarching plot, but things move regardless of whether the PCs act or not in response to the plot. So there are 'rails'/plot-hooks in the sense of a path to take and ways to accomplish a 'good ending', but the PCs are free to ignore those.
I'd find an actual cutscene annoying, since the PCs should be able to interact.

For the dying NPC example, I think it's a case of making it so the plot-breaking info isn't revealed regardless of PC actions. The examples already given are pretty good.

For the ghost-quest example... that seems like poor writing. I get that happening in modules, and when I've run modules, I've sometimes gone OOC and told the players "Listen. It's a module. You kinda need to do this, so please go along. Sorry." Yeah, it's poor DMing, but otherwise some modules would have you tinkering away while the world ends. In my opinion, running a module has the trade-off of "less DM time to prep" but "more likely to have plot holes".
I've heard advice of there being at least 3 ways to get info to players or advance the plot, so that if the players miss one or ignore one, the others are still there. The ghost being the only route seems poor design. As does the door being the only way through.

All that said, I really love a good, mid-to-long speech by an NPC giving details. But then I particularly love the lore and metaphysics of a setting, even trivial, unimportant stuff. But, even if I'd be a touch annoyed, I'd accept my PCs breaking into a fight as the villain is trying to monologue and tell them the crucial detail for the real villain. I'd just have to have them get the intel another way.

Thrudd
2019-03-06, 03:18 PM
Having a script can be helpful, just like your notes are helpful when you're doing public speaking. You have an idea what the character is going to say or wants to say in certain situations or about some event. You don't need to start from 0 improvising. What actually comes out of your mouth should be something natural that fits the specifics of the situation, but you can try to hit the main points that you had scripted for them.

What you don't want to do, unless there's some good in-world reason for it (like listening to a recording), is to say to the players :"ok, sit back while this guy gives his speech- ahem, 'it all started many years ago when I was a child...'"

Darth Tom
2019-03-06, 03:40 PM
Pre-written dialogue can be really useful. It lets you ensure that key information is delivered in a way that is effective, concise, and flavourful. I like to have key dialogue lines and descriptions written, so I can do them justice and create ambience for the players. I would never treat it as a mandatory speech though: I prefer to let them ask questions. If they ask, they get, if they don't ask, they don't get. Ask the right questions, get super-useful info or rumours. Ask the wrong questions, get detailed answers to the question they asked.

I hate it when players ask "what info does the guard have?" I say, "dunno. Ask her something." Then they ask and they get, and actually it's amazing how often they are clearly more interested in some of the other rumours or info that isn't part of the adventure I planned. That's totally cool. If my players seem more into "the princess is having weird visions" than "halls of the mountain king" then I'll run with it. Heck, I'm happy to tell my friends, "ok guys, this isn't the path I expected, so make tea, give me 30 and I'll get stuff together". I have a big notebook full of locations, items, characters etc so I typically just need a mind-map pulling together some promising ones, then let them loose. Not to mention that a lot of the time, it's the quest hook rather than the action that they prefer - so the princess's visions mean they need something from the halls of the mountain king, and I can still use a lot of my material.

OmSwaOperations
2019-03-08, 06:28 PM
The difficulty with scripted monologues is the difficulty with prep-heavy style generally: it pushes you towards railroading.

If you put a bunch of time into designing a cool speech, and the players seem like they're going to kill the NPC, or bugger off before he can state his case, it's very natural to feel like your work is going to be wasted; which then encourages you to make sure its **not** wasted, by forcing the PCs into a situation where the speech gets made. But even though that might be satisfying for you as a GM, players will hate it nine times out of ten.

Solamnicknight
2019-03-09, 11:17 AM
My advice as a DM is do not script. Especially villain or antagonist lines, since more often than not a bad die roll or a player doing something unexpected like fireballing the villain in the middle of their grandiose speech is quite likely. As for NPCs the important thing is to figure out their personality, not exactly what they are going to say. It feels more immersive if you base what the NPC is saying on how the players are talking to the npc and how the npc would react to those interactions. For example, an arrogant and proud noble might be offended by brusque words or insults from the players, and might trade a few barbs back, but in a snarky implied insult sort of way. A military leader giving a speech before a big battle is going to gauge the reactions of his men, and may alter some things to get them even more fired up to take on their foes.