I decide when their attacks go off. They can say they're interrupting him, but that doesn't mean they get to.
No, no, no, no, no. Absolutely 100% not. If the player really wants to make an attack, its not your call to just say "No".
That's not what I'm talking about. He can make the attack, but the DM decides the exact timing and the effect on the NPC. Those are definitely things the DM contols, though hopefully not with an oppressively heavy hand. Allowing an NPC to finish a monologue is a pretty benign usage of that control.
Not to mention that combat doesn't force the NPC to shut up. If it's an important enough NPC it should survive long enough to have it's say during combat. If not, then odds are the monologue was perhaps a bit self-indulgent and should be edited down a bit.
DM: "'Welcome to my lair. I'm sure you are wondering...'" Player 1: "I shoot my bow at him." DM: "Do the rest of you want him to shoot his bow at the high priest before he can make his speech divulging the secrets of the universe?" Players 2, 3 & 4: "Yes/Don't care" DM: "Ok, roll for initiative."
Speeches that give Important Information come in Comics, Cartoons, CRPGs, and a variety of other Media. For most part, it flies in the idea of basic Common Sense. Isn't Realistic either.
So Screw Speeches. In this case, if its really important, it should be found on some note or somewhere as a clue. Or can be in the form of some snide remarks, clues, etc that are given during the fight (talking is a Free Action for a Reason) or even at the end of the fight.
Villain : "I'll be back... urk..." *slumps over dead* Players : "Eh, you sure? LOL!" ( Maybe they even burn his body to Ashes ) (some Adventure Later) Villain : "Hi, its me again." Players : "Woot!?" Villain : "Well, I did say I'd be back."
And if you really like Important Speeches, drop Holograms, Magical Forcefields, whatever. Have the Villain make the Speech from a place of impunity and then leave, or descend from on-high to discipline the Heroes.
but I'm not within my rights, as DM, to decide for the players what their characters do, anymore than they are within their rights to tell me what my NPCs do.
Sounds like a trust issue. My players are welcome to create NPCs out of thin air or help guide the actions or personalities of NPCs in the game. Or come up with new stories and threads wholesale for me to introduce and flesh out. And I'm allowed to take the occasional liberty with their PCs as well if it helps round out the story. All parties work with an eye toward making things awesome.
The DM is a player and the players are also storytellers.
Trust plays no part in it. It's a group preference. Sure, my players can come up with NPCs that are associated with their character in some way, but they don't get to tell me what the gnomish inventor I've just introduced to them looks like, or says or does.
And if I, or one of the other DMs in the group, took over a PC, determining his or her actions, without the permission of the player, that player would simply tell us no. No, my character did not just say/do that, thank you.
And it wouldn't be open to further debate. The PC is under the control of the player. Period. If the player is cool with me having their character do something, that's one thing, but if there is any disagreement whatsoever about what a PC does or says, the player of that character wins. End of discussion.
Likewise for NPCs, and the DM. There's a grey area with companion characters and the like, where they're technically in the control of the DM, but we usually let the player decide most of their actions, unless the NPC is being used in a way that needs for it to be out of the player's control, so that story things go smoothly, but there we start getting into much more situational stuff.
Well, no. A PC's actions are the decision of the player. Which is a large part of why that DM would be crap.
Alright. The attack goes off. I still determine its exact timing and the effect on my NPC.
Sure, but if you fudge the rules to do so, or have an arrow hanging in the air, attack roll made, as the BBEG monologues for ten minutes, you're going to be messing with the players' sense of the world and it's "realness". Personally, I'd rather have to improvise a way around the attack.
Like having the bad guy keep monologueing as the fight commences. Few things are more bad ass than a bad ass speech delivered while putting the hurt on some adventurers.
And really, if you "decide" when the attack goes off, rather than using the rules for initiative and attacks, you're fudging, and an easy case can be made that you're railroading your players just so your little speech cutscene can work like you want it to.
In my experience, "god" is the will of the group as a whole, not the DM, so stuff like that only flies if the group is ok with it.
If, instead, you decide that the arrow flies as normal, hits if the roll is right (no fudging) and the villain grunts and keeps talking, that's fine.
Of course, my character would simply knock another arrow, and fire again, but hey, I don't have say in what the villain does in response to my attacks, do I?
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
DM: "'Welcome to my lair. I'm sure you are wondering...'" Player 1: "I shoot my bow at him." DM: "Do the rest of you want him to shoot his bow at the high priest before he can make his speech divulging the secrets of the universe?" Players 2, 3 & 4: "Yes/Don't care" DM: "Ok, roll for initiative."
This is basically the default assumption of Group Fiat (ie, modern) gaming, as opposed to DM Fiat gaming.
If the group digs it, it goes. If the group thinks you're being a jerk, you stop.
Speeches that give Important Information come in Comics, Cartoons, CRPGs, and a variety of other Media. For most part, it flies in the idea of basic Common Sense. Isn't Realistic either.
So Screw Speeches. In this case, if its really important, it should be found on some note or somewhere as a clue. Or can be in the form of some snide remarks, clues, etc that are given during the fight (talking is a Free Action for a Reason) or even at the end of the fight.
Villain : "I'll be back... urk..." *slumps over dead* Players : "Eh, you sure? LOL!" ( Maybe they even burn his body to Ashes ) (some Adventure Later) Villain : "Hi, its me again." Players : "Woot!?" Villain : "Well, I did say I'd be back."
And if you really like Important Speeches, drop Holograms, Magical Forcefields, whatever. Have the Villain make the Speech from a place of impunity and then leave, or descend from on-high to discipline the Heroes.
This. In it's entirety.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
Well, no. A PC's actions are the decision of the player. Which is a large part of why that DM would be crap.
Alright. The attack goes off. I still determine its exact timing and the effect on my NPC.
Sure, but if you fudge the rules to do so, or have an arrow hanging in the air, attack roll made, as the BBEG monologues for ten minutes, you're going to be messing with the players' sense of the world and it's "realness".
It's all in how you describe it. There's nothing in the rules that states that an attack roll means the arrow has been loosed or a sword swung or a spell completed, or even that anything physical happened at all. That's the usual interpretation, sure, but if it doesn't make sense or suit the story that it can be looked at another way.
Tied up in all this seems to be an assumption about how long the enemy is taking to talk. I'm not talking about 10 minute lecures. I'm coming at this from the direction of movies and shows with snappy dialogue and not that many long prefight talks. If there are prefight monologues in those settings, they're usually meant to prey on the emotions of the protagonist and stay that first attack, but I certainly wouldn't rely on that in an RPG.
Personally, I'd rather have to improvise a way around the attack.
That's another good way.
If an attack would just be damage, I'd simply describe the enemy as catching or blocking or absorbing the attack and inform my players that yes, they still took the damage, just not as a physical wound. Major enemies usually have enough HP that they can plausibly withstand a couple of attacks without much effect to them. I'd probably only resequence the attack if it were going to do something like knock the NPC off his podium, or remove him from play, something that would mess with how I wanted the line delivered.
And really, if you "decide" when the attack goes off, rather than using the rules for initiative and attacks, you're fudging,
The DM calls for initiative and until then initiative order (and the fight itself) hasn't begun. The exception is a surprise round, but I think we're talking about heroes facing an NPC who has started talking. No real surprise there.
if, instead, you decide that the arrow flies as normal, hits if the roll is right (no fudging) and the villain grunts and keeps talking, that's fine.
I'd have the villain off-handedly deflects the attack (while, yes, still taking the damage - there's no rule about having to grunt). But probably the attack does more than just damage, so if it's not something I can reflavor, I'd consider resequencing the attack until after my NPC had a chance to talk.
Of course, my character would simply knock another arrow, and fire again, but hey, I don't have say in what the villain does in response to my attacks, do I?
I assume there are far more attacks actually happening in a combat round than are rolled for, so the player would be welcome to describe the character as shooting repeatedly, but nothing would be rolled and nothing on paper would be expended or have an effect until it was the character's turn again.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
Trust plays no part in it. It's a group preference.
Preference is often a reaction to some bad experience in the past. To prefer a thing over something else means you've been in the position to have had to make a choice. In this example, a DM that was perceived as overreaching such that nobody wants the DM "messing" with their PC. Or in the case of people who don't like any player against player action because it went badly in previous games.
But if you've reached that preference through divine insight or the like, cool.
they don't get to tell me what the gnomish inventor I've just introduced to them looks like, or says or does.
I'm with Centauri on saying this is a shame. This is a big missed opportunity for shared storytelling.
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
Tied up in all this seems to be an assumption about how long the enemy is taking to talk. I'm not talking about 10 minute lecures. I'm coming at this from the direction of movies and shows with snappy dialogue and not that many long prefight talks. If there are prefight monologues in those settings, they're usually meant to prey on the emotions of the protagonist and stay that first attack, but I certainly wouldn't rely on that in an RPG
Oh, yeah - that's where the disconnect was happening. I don't expect the party to be able to sword the villain in the face before he can hiss out something on the order of, "you'll pay for this interruption with your lives, pathetic insects!" I'm talking about those ridiculous, longwinded monologues wherein the villain reveals his brilliant plan to do naughty stuff and sneer at the pathetic mortals and so on and so forth and blah blah blah blah can we just cut to the part where I'm swording him? There's a limit. If he's got a lot to get off his chestl, we must hope he's enough of a badass to deliver his monologue over crossed swords.
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish." D&D Outsider
Tied up in all this seems to be an assumption about how long the enemy is taking to talk. I'm not talking about 10 minute lecures. I'm coming at this from the direction of movies and shows with snappy dialogue and not that many long prefight talks. If there are prefight monologues in those settings, they're usually meant to prey on the emotions of the protagonist and stay that first attack, but I certainly wouldn't rely on that in an RPG
Oh, yeah - that's where the disconnect was happening. I don't expect the party to be able to sword the villain in the face before he can hiss out something on the order of, "you'll pay for this interruption with your lives, pathetic insects!" I'm talking about those ridiculous, longwinded monologues wherein the villain reveals his brilliant plan to do naughty stuff and sneer at the pathetic mortals and so on and so forth and blah blah blah blah can we just cut to the part where I'm swording him? There's a limit. If he's got a lot to get off his chestl, we must hope he's enough of a badass to deliver his monologue over crossed swords.
Agreed.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
Oh, yeah - that's where the disconnect was happening. I don't expect the party to be able to sword the villain in the face before he can hiss out something on the order of, "you'll pay for this interruption with your lives, pathetic insects!" I'm talking about those ridiculous, longwinded monologues wherein the villain reveals his brilliant plan to do naughty stuff and sneer at the pathetic mortals and so on and so forth and blah blah blah blah can we just cut to the part where I'm swording him? There's a limit. If he's got a lot to get off his chestl, we must hope he's enough of a badass to deliver his monologue over crossed swords.
That goes back to the campaign's style and tone. For example, a pulp action game with over-the-top villains are expected to make the long monologue from time to time. If you sword my villain in the face before he can gloat about it being too late for the heroes to stop his dastardly plan, I'm going to wonder why you asked me to run a pulp action game in the first place.
It's a solid trope. It deserves some respect.
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
