Interrupting the BBEG to Start Combat

[Phlebas]

Does not matter, he can't ready outside of combat. As most others have already said: Everyone is aware of each other, as soon as someone starts to fight it's time to roll initiative.

The only exception would be if someone is hiding somewhere and he's not been noticed yet.

might not be RAW, but i think i prefer to get everyone into initiative order before the monologue starts and then let it happen - If everyone's effectively delaying (or readying!) during the monologue, the first player who says "I Go now" triggers the readied action, then others act according to initiative mods or sort themelves into whatever order they desire.

Alternatively, If i keep cycling every 6 seconds then it would allow surreptitious potion drinking or powering up on both sides before the starting pistol went off (so to speak) - and build up the tension on both sides.......

I use cyclic intiative & cards - it tends to drive a certain interpretation of the rules...

 

[Patlin]

This situation at my table usually involves references to "The Gamers" by the Dead Gentleman. After some goofing around, the DM completes the monologue and everyone rolls initiative normally.

 

[Darklone]

might not be RAW, but i think i prefer to get everyone into initiative order before the monologue starts and then let it happen - If everyone's effectively delaying (or readying!) during the monologue, the first player who says "I Go now" triggers the readied action, then others act according to initiative mods or sort themelves into whatever order they desire.

If I understand you correctly, that kills the tension. Players know who would be first... and what's so funny about a gunfight if you know the other guy is faster?

I prefer to let them shiver in the dark, not knowing how fast that evil wiz BBEG with his fighter bodyguards is. If they want to talk, fine. If they want to fight, they shouldn't know already how good their initiative would be.

 

[pallandrome]

Why would the characters know what the BBEG has for an init modifier?

 

[RigaMortus2]

My group doesn't have both parties roll init as soon as they "meet" for the simple fact that if all they both intend to do (at least initially) is talk, it takes too long to go around the table in init order and see what everyone wants to say.

The way we work it is like this...

If either party intends to be initially hostile to the other, roll init as normal.

If both parties don't intend to be hostile initially, we let people (PCs and NPCs) speak freely. Once a PC does something the DM (or by extension of the DM, the NPC) feels would be a "threatening" we have the NPC make a Sense Motive check using the rules for getting a "hunch" of the situation (which is a DC20 Sense Motive check). If the other PCs in the party want to, we allow them to do the same...

Whomever fails the Sense Motive check doesn't have an idea that the PC will be doing something "hostile" and so that PC gets a surprise round, then init is rolled.

If the NPC or other PCs make the Sense Motive check, we roll init as normal, because they have a hunch that something is off or the PC is about to do something possibly hostile/threatening.

Sometimes the PCs will make the Sense Motive check just to see what their fellow companion is about to do, but don't act on it until he does what he wants to do and also gage the reaction of the NPC.

 

[Nail]

No, but shouldn't the player be told the option is available? A good old, "Sure, you can just attack - but everybody gets to roll initiative, and he might win. If you want to catch him by surprise, I'm going to need you to roll a Bluff, opposed by his Sense Motive..."....

I could see doing this sort of thing the first time you DM some players. In the beginning no one knows how the DM handles things, or how the DM will let situations develop.

But if I've been DMing players for even a short time, I won't give 'em the CRPG "menu of options" at every turn. It's their job to figure it out.

Considering the OP's original statement "PC interupts and attacks -- what do I do?", I'm not sure saying "tell them to use their Bluff skill" is the way to go. But YMMV.

FWIW, I totally don't buy the Sleight of Hand skill use in this situation in order to change the Init roll or the presence of a surprise round.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Genre clash. I'm trying to resolve it IMC, but having some trouble.

Genre 1 ("Gentleman-at-Arms"): the PCs have come to defeat the BBEG, possibly bring him back for some justice, maybe just take his +1 MacGuffin. It's in the name of glory, justice, and other chivalric things that don't slink, scuttle or make Move Silently checks.
- Opening speech and trash talking
- Opening moves should be low-level, escalation ensues building dramatic tension
- Possible closing speech to resolve lingering mystery ("... and I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling halflings!")

Genre 2 ("Commando Strike"): the PCs have come to destroy the BBEG by any means necessary. Their foe is an implacable, irredeemable evil that must be destroyed utterly. No quarter is asked or given. It's in the name of revenge or the survival of humanity.
- Stealth, misdirection and unfair tactics on both sides
- Opening attacks are always strongest possible
- Destruction of foe precludes idle chatter -- expect silence and the like.


Thoughts on how to unambiguously separate these two, so no-one is confused about what the encounter is going to be, while allowing both to fluidly exist in game?

Thanks, -- N

Per my post above, I would approach these the same way...

First, you as DM have to decide how the BBEG is going to initially react to the PCs. If he is initially going to be hostile, then there is no issue here, as soon as he detects the PCs, he's going to drop into combat. If the BBEG is feeling cocky or just wants to see what the PCs are there for, he might wait to see if the PCs make the first move. In this case, he is initially NOt hostile to them (meaning, he isn't planning to just attack/kill them as soon as he sees them).

Second, the same thing for the PCs. Ask them what they intend to do. Do they intend to blast the guy as soon as they see him? That would make combat start right away. Or do the PCs intend to "read him his rights" (so to speak)?

If you determine that either side is initially going to be hostile, then you would start combat/roll init as soon as you (the DM) deem appropriate). If both sides want to hear what the other side has to say, at least initially, then don't roll init/start combat. When in "non-combat mode" let them speak/act freely until the action(s) of one party would seem threatening to the other. Then enforce a Sense Motive check for the opponent to make a hunch (DC 20) to see if he thinks something is "off". One of a few possibilities will happen:

(A) No one succeeds on the Sense Motive check, the PC or BBEG (whichever is provoking the action) gets a surprise round, then roll for init
(B) Everyone succeeds on the Sense Motive check, roll for init as normal.
(C) Some succeed on the Sense Motive check, those that succeed get a surprise round (roll for init to determine the order), then after the surprise round resolves, roll for init for those who have not yet acted.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Thanks for that Nail. I think that is a a good suggestion. Once the PC's kill a couple of people/creatures that they shouldn't have they'll start thinking a little more that rolling for initiative doesn't mean "enter killing mode".

Though from a certain point of view, they should refuse to learn that lesson. Stay with me now.

If they learn from those encounters that going into initiative doesn't actually mean combat, then the lesson that you learn is that teaching them a lesson through gameplay is effective. Since being taught a lesson through gameplay isn't much fun, that's the last lesson your players want you to learn.

Instead they should stubbornly refuse to learn any lesson so that the lesson you learn is that attempting to teach them lessons through gameplay is futile and ineffective. Thus though their characters may suffer short term set-backs because of refusing to learn the lesson you're trying to teach, in the long term they'll have taught you the lesson they want to teach, which is that nobody should be teaching anybody any lessons through gameplay that would be better talked out.

Nobody learns their lesson, resulting in a lesson for everybody!

(At least, I think that's the lesson here.)

 

[RigaMortus2]

Also remember, speaking does not prevent the BBEG from readying an action to cast hold person on the first character that moves...

It does if you are not in combat or taking turns in initiative. The Ready Action can only be done as part of combat.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Gotta disagree here:

[...] "Your minions were too slow--now it's just you and me." That could be cool.

Okay, fair enough. My point, though imperfectly expressed, wasn't that the rising skeletons was the only possible cool visual ... my point was that it's the cool visual the writer was clearly writing toward. Just like a monologuing villain is a writer's way of imparting information ... it's not the only way, but as something the writer selected, it's entitled, IMO, to some deference.

This is not true. A PC who scouted ahead would see skeletons that are already there.

All true, but relatively minor in the scheme of things. A good writer will stress the sarcophagi and allow the scout to draw his own conclusions. The rest is simply design ... obviously if a writer is striving for a certain set-piece, he should have the rules of the game in mind as well.

Perhaps more to the point, it's a complete waste of the skeletons rising up scene if it is mechanically identical to the skeletons being there in the first place.

I obviously disagree. It's much cooler to describe the quick clickety-clack and the lighting of glowing red eyes as the skeletons rise and assemble. I think that coolness is worthwhile.

Under Siege comes to mind, and I suspect that Air Force One mostly meshes with the approach too.

In both cases, the villains monologued. Tommy Lee Jones chewed some scenery up, in fact.

I understand the appeal for players to believe their characters are hyper-competent and I understand the benefit of that kind of substance-over-style action in our real world. I just don't care for it in gaming. IMO, players who want to be the cool and dealy loner lethal weapon can always go play Splinter Cell. I want Star Wars, and Indiana Jones, and Ladyhawke.

As an aside: Ironically, one of my favorite games of yesteryear, Cyberpunk 2020, constantly stressed "style over substance" in the game literature. Yet never was a game system more "do as I say, not as I do," and never was a game's player-base populated by gamers who wanted to play exactly the opposite style espoused by the game itself. Apropos of nothing ... just a wry remembrance.