Ogrork the Mighty
Explorer
Let the players get the jump! Of course, they'll regret it when they discover the villain is really an illusion and they just burned a bunch of spells/attacks on it, hehehe.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Why Villainous Rants?
- Thread starter RangerWickett
- Start date
dreaded_beast
First Post
I think it depends on what you and your players enjoy during a game.
If your players are averse to that sort of "role-playing" and would rather just get in there, then maybe you should discuss more with your players about the kinds of encounters that you enjoy in a campaign.
Hopefully, you can meet some middle-ground that is suitable for both you and your players.
From a player point of view, often times we try seize every advantage we can, especially if it is from the BBEG. If the BBEG opens himself up to attack by "wasting time talking", an opportunity is created.
In addition, for myself, it has always bugged me when I watch a show or movie where there is an unrealstic amount of time spent by the BBEG "ranting" or leaving the hero in a "death-trap".
For example, the scene in Austin Powers where Dr. Evil leaves Austin and the girl to be devoured by man-eating porpoises. It is a parody of all the times the villains could have killed the good guy and be done with it, but instead, leave them in situations where there is always a chance for escape. In a movie like Austin Powers, it works, since it is a comedy.
But if it is a movie, or even a DND encounter, that is trying to be played "seriously", the suspension of disbelief is hard to maintain.
As a player, if the BBEG is spending time "ranting", it would be hard to maintain that suspension of disbelief if the PCs just stood around while the BBEG gave its rant.
Not that BBEG ranting is a bad thing, I quite enjoy them, but the whole "realism" aspect is not there. I realize that "realism" is relative to the type of campaign you play in, but in my opinion, there must be some sense of "realism" to go hand-in-hand with "suspension of disbelief". Realism defined, perhaps as using "common sense".
To take a line from the movie "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"
"When it's time to shoot, shoot don't talk"
If your players are averse to that sort of "role-playing" and would rather just get in there, then maybe you should discuss more with your players about the kinds of encounters that you enjoy in a campaign.
Hopefully, you can meet some middle-ground that is suitable for both you and your players.
From a player point of view, often times we try seize every advantage we can, especially if it is from the BBEG. If the BBEG opens himself up to attack by "wasting time talking", an opportunity is created.
In addition, for myself, it has always bugged me when I watch a show or movie where there is an unrealstic amount of time spent by the BBEG "ranting" or leaving the hero in a "death-trap".
For example, the scene in Austin Powers where Dr. Evil leaves Austin and the girl to be devoured by man-eating porpoises. It is a parody of all the times the villains could have killed the good guy and be done with it, but instead, leave them in situations where there is always a chance for escape. In a movie like Austin Powers, it works, since it is a comedy.
But if it is a movie, or even a DND encounter, that is trying to be played "seriously", the suspension of disbelief is hard to maintain.
As a player, if the BBEG is spending time "ranting", it would be hard to maintain that suspension of disbelief if the PCs just stood around while the BBEG gave its rant.
Not that BBEG ranting is a bad thing, I quite enjoy them, but the whole "realism" aspect is not there. I realize that "realism" is relative to the type of campaign you play in, but in my opinion, there must be some sense of "realism" to go hand-in-hand with "suspension of disbelief". Realism defined, perhaps as using "common sense".
To take a line from the movie "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"
"When it's time to shoot, shoot don't talk"
Qualir
First Post
I never have a problem when delivering the final villainous rant to my players. Most of us used to play with the same DM, who great storyteller but he always wanted to win 
. To accomplish his evil ends, the DM would declare that the party was attacked by boxed text. Once I started DMing (we all got tired of wandering damage and other such DM abuse) the players were so conditioned with the "attack by boxed text" that they never thought to actually try to short cut it 
. As new players have joined our group, the older players have stopped them from short cutting by saying "Ah-ah-ah, you can't act while be attacked by boxed text." 
Nobody complains. No actions are taken that have any effect on combat. Durations don't expire during boxed text attacks for players or villains. I give a speech and a dance. The players sometimes retaliate in kind. Then, the nasty bad villain gets his hiny kicked, but not before he gets to gloat about how it can't possibly happen. 
. To accomplish his evil ends, the DM would declare that the party was attacked by boxed text. Once I started DMing (we all got tired of wandering damage and other such DM abuse) the players were so conditioned with the "attack by boxed text" that they never thought to actually try to short cut it . As new players have joined our group, the older players have stopped them from short cutting by saying "Ah-ah-ah, you can't act while be attacked by boxed text." Nobody complains. No actions are taken that have any effect on combat. Durations don't expire during boxed text attacks for players or villains. I give a speech and a dance. The players sometimes retaliate in kind. Then, the nasty bad villain gets his hiny kicked, but not before he gets to gloat about how it can't possibly happen. 
tonym
First Post
I think dramatic villain speeches are great. I like hearing them as a Player and saying them as a DM.
Long, arrogant speeches prior to a battle do seem a tiny bit unrealistic, but not overly so. They seem 'cinematic.'
Killing a villain who talks smack does add a extra enjoyment to the victory. I especially like it when a villain keeps talking smack during the battle.
"You'll never hit me with such a poorly made sword! Fool!"
((stab))
"Oww! A lucky blow! But your luck has run out!"
((stab))
"Oww! Perhaps I have underestimated y--"
((stab))
"Aeii!"
((stab stab stab stab))
Tony
Long, arrogant speeches prior to a battle do seem a tiny bit unrealistic, but not overly so. They seem 'cinematic.'
Killing a villain who talks smack does add a extra enjoyment to the victory. I especially like it when a villain keeps talking smack during the battle.
"You'll never hit me with such a poorly made sword! Fool!"
((stab))
"Oww! A lucky blow! But your luck has run out!"
((stab))
"Oww! Perhaps I have underestimated y--"
((stab))
"Aeii!"
((stab stab stab stab))
Tony
elbandit
First Post
Long Windedness
That would be the HERO System that allows you to talk as much as you would like in combat without it taking any action. It was designed that way to simulate the comic book battles we grew up with where the Heroes and Villians talk long winded smack.
Psion said:
That would be the HERO System that allows you to talk as much as you would like in combat without it taking any action. It was designed that way to simulate the comic book battles we grew up with where the Heroes and Villians talk long winded smack.
barsoomcore
Unattainable Ideal
There's always the Swashbuckling Card -- one is called "Solilquoy" and forces everyone else to wait until you've finished speaking.
I've also been known to just say to my players, "Hang on, he's doing his villain gloating. You'll get your turn."
Rule 0, baby.
I've also been known to just say to my players, "Hang on, he's doing his villain gloating. You'll get your turn."
Rule 0, baby.
Savage Wombat
Hero
I remember some rule in the old Marvel Superheroes game that said that a villain who had a helpless hero at his mercy got bonus experience points for gloating instead of finishing the hero off. It provides a good "in game" justification for taking a dramatic action.
DM_Matt
First Post
My group LIKES to keep the campaign cinematic and referential of supers and anime, so they generally like and expect these sorts of things, and enjoy counter-banter. There are, however, occasional jokes about all villains gaining the following bonus feat.
Fast Gloat [General]
Prerequisites: Villain
Benefit: Can talk for any length of time as a free action
Fast Gloat [General]
Prerequisites: Villain
Benefit: Can talk for any length of time as a free action
I think that the concept of villainous gloating is one that only works well in situations where the hero hasn't just buffed himself up with a bunch of spells that are going to end in a few rounds.
So yes, having a bunch of CRPGers in my group, I find that if I just say "cut-scene", life is good -- and even then, I'll accept someone saying "Right, but you do realize that the whole time he's doing this, I'm using Sleight of Hand to get my wand of Searing Light ready, since it's obvious that he's a lich." That's only reasonable.
But yes, generally, if you say, "And this is the part where you and the villain both get to pose, and no time passes for the purpose of spells or other time-sensitive abilities," that allows a little cinematicism. And, as a DM who likes cinematicism, that works for me.
So yes, having a bunch of CRPGers in my group, I find that if I just say "cut-scene", life is good -- and even then, I'll accept someone saying "Right, but you do realize that the whole time he's doing this, I'm using Sleight of Hand to get my wand of Searing Light ready, since it's obvious that he's a lich." That's only reasonable.
But yes, generally, if you say, "And this is the part where you and the villain both get to pose, and no time passes for the purpose of spells or other time-sensitive abilities," that allows a little cinematicism. And, as a DM who likes cinematicism, that works for me.
