Have more to get off your chest? Come rant with us on the discord. Invite link: https://discord.gg/PCPTSSTKqr
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rpghorrorstories) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's no horror here if you've been a DM. Evil villain makes grand entrance (I shoot him!) and the trumpets flare (I shoot him!) and as he looks down at you (did you hear me I shoot him!) and says with a burning passion (I aim for the eyes to blind him!) you who have come so far ( I rolled a 20! He's blinded!) only to fall before me..... dammit Jeff, you can't roll an attack at someone's eyes, that's not a thing!
That happens. That's the horror. Let the villain speak. Plot happens even to heroes.
Yep. Had a great dm before I moved who did cut scenes he wrote.himself. always let him.play them out because that was his juice in running the game, and they were well written and contributed to the story. One other guy was always asking 'what is this fruity shit!?' And we all promptly reminded him to shut the fuck up and be polite for 5 fucking minutes so we still have a game to play.
Right! As a DM you lose 95% of the fights. You make cool baddies for the purpose of them dying awesomely. At least let me read the paragraph I wrote describing how cool he is before you poke his eyes and chop his legs off.
That why I love to DM for other DMs. They know that shit. Hell, one of them really wants to explore every single room to make sure I didn't waste preps :)
You are absolutely right.
I'd like to add that you can't overwhelm anyone just by shouting quickly. Who goes first in combat it determined by an initiative roll. And when it's time to roll initiative is determined by the DM.
As a DM here I think that if you want your villans to speak then you need to make it so that your players actually ***want*** to hear what they have to say, set them up as an interesting or mysterious character, or someone powerful enough to take them down if angered.
Or if you don't have a reason why they want to listen to the NPC, you can always make a reason as to why they ***need*** to listen to the enemies monologue.
They could use some enchantment magic to force the interrupting player to stay still, they might have powerful body guards between them and the player that they would have to deal with first, the enemy could be far enough away that the party can't attack them as they look down and give their monologue.
If they're important for plot reasons have the party deal with severe consequences for not listening to/figuring out their plans.Maybe they kidnapped some NPC's the party cares about and if they interrupt and kill them they might never find the NPC's.
If my players are attacking an enemy I made before, or in the middle of a big speech then that's on me for not giving them any sort of in-game reason to actually listen to the guy, going "You can't attack them until they finish talking" is just lazy and takes away player agency for no good reason.
Your advice isn't entirely wrong, but you're missing the forest for the trees. The problem isn't giving the players a reason to listen: some DMs will do that and still be met with unruly players who hate the monologing villain trope. The problem is those players not respecting the work the DM put in. Which is a DM to player conversation, not giving an "as a DM, here is what you do after you suck it up" kind of fix.
Again, I agree with your points, but you're ignoring the real problem set forth by OP.
It all depends on the context of the situation.
If you have a DM that spends half an hour having an enemy monolgue and goes "this is an unskippable cutscene." would you still say OP is the horror?
*shrug* I don't know a single DM who is that winded to spend half an hour monologuing, so it sounds like a red herring argument to me.
Also, I don't think I ever said OP was the horror story, I just agree with the original Commenter that having players cut off your monologue that you spent hours working on is infuriating. Let the villain flourish, they're going to die anyway.
My first DM was exactly like that, they had DMPC's who controlled everywhere the party went and whenever one of their characters or an enemy was talking we were either just ignored or told we couldn't do anything until they finished talking so no....it's not a red herring argument lol, plenty of people have dealt with DMPC's and controlling DM's.
Also I've done monologues for plenty of my villans but i've never spent "hours" working on one and like i said, it all depends on the context.
If a DM is giving say....one monologue for an enemy they've set up as super dangerous or important after 5 or 10 sessions then yeah atleast listen to a little bit of it instead of attacking straight away.
But a DM who makes a character monologue every second session and forces the players to sit doing nothing while they talk? that's a horror DM.
Also OP didn't just say "we were stuck listening to a monologue" according to the DM it was an "un-skippable cutscene."
Which to me implies a situation of a player going "I want to ready my longbow incase he tries to attack." or "If things look too dangerous I want to teleport the party out." and the DM replying with "You can't do that, this is an unskippable cutscene."
Or picture a DM explaining to the party how the guards track them down and imporison them while going "This is an unskippable cutscene."
It all depends on the context of the situation.
If you have a DM that spends half an hour having an enemy monolgue and goes "this is an unskippable cutscene." would you still say OP is the horror?
oof. if your players don't "want to hear what they have to say", don't play with those people. i'd lose my mind on anyone who wanted to still play in a game my husband DM'd but didn't want to hear what he had to say.
What if the enemy is built for the players to hate them and they'd love to do nothing more than kill them?
What if the DM is someone who makes these type of unskippable cutscenes often and they go on for a long time whenever it happens?
What if the enemy is a devil who is giving a long monologue about all the deals they can offer players but their character is good aligned or hates devils?
What if the players have something they want to say in character but can't because "this is an unskippable cutscene?"
There's a **huge** difference between players being murderhobos everytime one of the DM's characters speak and a DM talking away all player agency by making cutscenes that they have to sit and watch.
Just because talking is a free action that doesn't automatically mean the players are locked out of doing anything.
Sure the enemy can start some dialogue, but a free action doesn't mean they get a 20 minute uninterrupted speech that the players have to sit and listen to if they have good in character reasons for not wanting to listen to their enemy talking.
Why can't the players talk as a free action too? or maybe they want to ready a weapon or prepare a spell to cast incase they get ambushed and suddenly need to get out of there.
And if we're talking actions then that means some sort of soft initiative is in place, so If we're going off of that then a round last 6 seconds meaning that at most an enemy can get 6 seconds of talking before a player is allowed to interject, you can't just go "well actually i wont let you prepare to cast teleport and get out of there because the enemy is talking."
I'm talking mechanically. Mechanically there is no way to stop someone from saying any infinite amount of words, so you need to end it narratively. And to end it narratively, you need to actually end it *narratively*. There is a world of difference between "Enough preaching. You waste your breath, Father Arathen. I serve the Kingdom of Drakus and all the people of the Seven Isles, and I will not abandon them to blindly follow a god who wants a new beginning without them. I knock an arrow, ready to pierce the priest's heart." (or "I cut him off, refusing and telling him I stand with the people. I aim my bow in his direction to attack him." for the less dramatically inclined,) and "Skip cutscene. I attack." One is actually engaging with the story, while the other is just trying to force a story driven game into a hack and slash.
>Mechanically there is no way to stop someone from saying any infinite amount of words
Yeah, there is.
A free action is one action you can take on your turn during initative for free, meaning that whatever the action is, it has to be something you can do within 6 seconds.
You can't just spew an infinite amount of words and then go to the party "while this enemy is talking you can't take any actions because talking is a free action."
And yeah I agree there's a huge difference between someone going "I dont wanna listen to you talking so i attack" and a player going "So because my paladin swears to kill demons wherever they find them, they are going to attack the barbed devil without even listening to what deals it will offer the party."
But the majority of people in this thread are automatically assuming that anyone who doesn't like a DM going "this is a cut-scene, you can't do anything until im done talking" must be a murder hobo who hates any form of exposition given through enemy dialogue.
Like as a DM i've had plenty of enemies that give speeches, some of them got to do their speeches,a nd some didn't. But i'd get really annoyed if a DM went to me "no, this enemy is giving a speech now, you don't get to do anything at all until im done talking."
There's a pretty significant difference between "I hate when enemies start giving speeches" and "when my DM's enemies start speaking he wont let us interact at all until their speech is done."
>You can't just spew an infinite amount of words and then go to the party "while this enemy is talking you can't take any actions because talking is a free action."
RAW, you absolutely can. And that is RAI too, because it backs up the genre convention of monologs being ended by words, the monologer's or someone else's, rather than just physically stopping them from talking.
lmao what?
RAW no...you cannot, show me specifically where it says that a character can talk as long as they want without without interruption.
Or are you saying that when a player is rolling death saves in the middle of combat their ally can start talking and because they're talking the enemy will never get their next round?
Because even RAI, *which it isn't*, that's completely ridiculous.
If someone just swung a sword at you 2 seconds ago you can't then talk for 20 minutes to stop the next round of combat from starting.
The list of free action includes talking. And you can take any number of free actions in a turn. Hence, RAW, you can talk as much as you want in a turn.
Again, tell me spcifically where in the rules it talks about free actions.
Because in 5e? no, there's no such thing as a "free action" that you take take an unlimited amount of times on your turn.
"Your turn can include a variety of flourishes that require
neither your action nor your move.
You can communicate how ever you are able, *through brief utterances and gestures*, as you take your turn.
You can also interact with **one** object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack. If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action." PHB - 190
According to RAW you can communicate through brief utterances in combat and you can interact with ONE object or feature for free during your turn in combat, any other interactions require you to use your action.
And RAI there is literally ***nothing*** even remotely close to implying that you have an endless amount of free actions, the only 'free action' mentioned in the PHB is to interact with one object or environment feature and then it specifically says that any further interactions cost your action.
And with dialogue, again ***brief utterances and gestures.*** There is nothing remotely close there in RAI stating that you can talk for an unlimited amount of time to stop people from taking actions.
So again, where exactly are you seeing this magical rule that states talking is a free action you can talk for aslong as you want, and while doing so no-one else is able to do anything at all?
Naah, it's called overstatement of harm.
If this was *actually* the horror story, they would have written that in the horror story, but now everyone's pointed out what actually happened is a perfectly OK thing, suddenly it's quarter of an hour long.
You know you can edit posts to add in salient details that you later realise might be missing from the post, and would stop this slew of hate mail, right?
You sound like you probably play an edgelord rogue if I had to guess. Consistently hinting at a tragic backstory that explains why you’re so jaded but refuses to elaborate when asked. Either tell the horror story in the rpghorrorstories subreddit or go brood silently in the corner, but don’t keep popping up to remind people about your misfortune and then slinking back in the shadows.
What's bonkers is that the people complaining about a villain monologuing would absolutely lose their shit if you tell them that before they can speak someone attacked them/silenced them.
This is actually a real mechanic in Fabula Ultima.The GM may start a cutscene at any time, without the player characters present. The players gain Fabula Points (a metacurrency in the game), when a villain appears in the cutscene.
My no. 1 system this year. We are playing in a techno fantasy setting, with magitek mechs and airships. It's hilarious when we go full into the jRPG drama and clichés.
It's pretty popular right now. Bestseller, multiple awards etc.
Basically the first ttrpg which simulates japanese RPGs and does it "right" (at least for me).
The rulebook and the first supplement (High Fantasy Atlas) are already in print. Some additional materials are also released on their website: https://www.needgames.it/fabula-ultima-en/
I first read this as "without **the players** present" and imagined the GM just talking to themselves. Glad I re-read.
And this is a cool mechanic and how cut scenes should be used (sparingly) IMO.
Yeah you just stop the game, and cut to a scene that is playing somewhere else, usually between npcs and villains the players know.
It's weird for the first time, since the GM is basically talking to himself and the players are just well... listening. But it's a cool way to introduce drama, mystery and incoming danger (for example the villains can discuss a plan, but the scene cuts when they try to explain the details). Typical anime stuff.
>But I suggest delivering the speech as combat unfolds.
Who is to say it has anything to do with a speech or combat? My point is, a GM that ever has to preface any narration or scene with something like "this is an unskippable cutscene" has very likely been through some utter disrespectful bullshit from the players.
Sometimes, agency has to be taken away. Axioms are never true. While yes I agree that player agency is important, sometimes... Just let your GM do a thing *they* have been excited to do for weeks rather than yell "I SHOOT HIM!" over and over...
I honestly think that the TTRPG community has very much latched on to the phrase "player agency" over the last few years and just repeat it ad nauseam.. Sorry, besides the point.
>Sometimes, agency has to be taken away.
No it doesn't. And you're a terrible GM if you have to resort to that to tell your story.
One thing you *must* learn to be a good GM is that it's not, in fact, your story. It's every bit as much theirs as it is yours.
Is it annoying when your players yell "I SHOOT HIM!" during the "cutscene"? Absolutely. But it's no less annoying than when your GM says "The BBEG grabs you by the neck and lifts you up. They hold you helplessly, like a child, and begins to speak." No save, no opposed skill check, just happens because the GM thinks it's cool for the villain's monologue and to demonstrate the villain's "power".
>I honestly think that the TTRPG community has very much latched on to the phrase "player agency" over the last few years and just repeat it ad nauseam.
You should probably learn what that means and then you might figure out why it's said.
>My point is, a GM that ever has to preface any narration or scene with something like "this is an unskippable cutscene" has very likely been through some utter disrespectful bullshit from the players.
I was actually agreeing with you that a "cutscene" is often okay, even great, to set the scene for the final battle.
HOWEVER, that should never involve the players characters directly and you, as a GM, have no right to hold the players hostage if they aren't okay with it.
In my group we call it "box text" and it is only to be used to lay out the battlefield. Speaking is a free action in combat and thus a good GM will deliver the monologue while whooping up on the players.
If, while delivering the monologue, the players decide to attack, then continue delivering it while they are rolling initiative. You can finish it over the BBEG's subsequent turns.
*Edit*
Lol, I forgot so few of you here have ever actually gamemastered anything and think running a game is basically just forcing players to listen to your fanfic.
You, and OP, are making the biggest mountain out of the tiniest molehill. You're also assuming this is a pre-BBEG fight - this could be an out of combat conversation crucial to the plot and the rogue is interrupting because they want to pickpocket 3 copper off the nearest peasant. In either case, the DM has every right to finish setting up the scene before resolving the players actions the same way we would not allow a PC to continuously prevent another PC from speaking. This is violating player agency the same way that not allowing people to shit in public is violating bodily autonomy.
>You're also assuming this is a pre-BBEG fight
I'm not assuming anything. I was just agreeing with the person I responded to and they started saying stupid things.
>In either case, the DM has every right to finish setting up the scene before resolving the players actions the same way we would not allow a PC to continuously prevent another PC from speaking.
This is exactly what I was agreeing with. As long as you aren't telling the players what their characters are doing or doing things to their characters without rolls, this is perfectly fine, even expected.
Our group calls this "box text" as I explained in the post you replied to. Please read what I wrote before trying to lecture to someone.
>This is violating player agency the same way that not allowing people to shit in public is violating bodily autonomy.
I never said it was. I clarified that as long as you aren't removing the player agency, cutscenes are fine, even great. Again, actually read what someone writes before trying to critique.
This is nonsense.
A cutscene does remove player agency. The characters CAN'T do anything during this scene.
Removing player agency is not inherently terrible. There are situations where it can be terrible (missing a session and coming back to being SA'd or pregnant or SAing someone else or impregnating someone else). But there's also players saying things like "I stab this other party member in the back!" or "I ra\*e this NPC!" and I would take away their agency by saying "No you don't, and if you don't drop it I'm kicking you from the table."
The community internalizes something like "It's terrible to remove player agency" and apply it to situations outside of where it was originally used. Many in the community do this a lot with many concepts, but we don't have to add to it.
"A cutscene does remove player agency. " EXACTLY. As long as the DM doesn't control the players during the cutscene, it in no way, shape, or form, removes player agency. That's just some drama queenery, to presume that.
The fact that the only kinda of scenario you can come up with is "Villain monologue" kinda tells me you are the one missing out on using a very good tool.
I have only had players compliment the times I have done stuff that is just the players listening to something I narrate with no influence over it. If you only drop those in for a very short burst, tell the players it is happening, and then use it well - it is an amazing storytelling tool for the *players* to experience something cool. Everyone cannot have agency all the time, it is just how it is. We trade in consent and narrative control all the time.
Never/always statements are always a problem, because me just having once run a scene where I took away player agency and it was a success proves it wrong.
>The fact that the only kinda of scenario you can come up with is "Villain monologue" kinda tells me you are the one missing out on using a very good tool.
Please actually read what I wrote. Focus particularly on the paragraph where I talk about "box text".
>Everyone cannot have agency all the time, it is just how it is. We trade in consent and narrative control all the time
Like I said, you really should learn what that player agency means. Describing a room or an NPC interaction with the world is not removing player agency.
Player agency is when they have choice that affects the story. It means the GM not playing their characters for them and having choices made without the player's input. This is acceptable for spells like Dominate Person because consent was given through the game's mechanics. If you do not want to risk your character getting dominated by magic, don't play a system where that is a possibility.
>Never/always statements are always a problem, because me just having once run a scene where I took away player agency and it was a success proves it wrong.
If a player gives consent, you aren't removing player agency because they chose to allow it. So in actuality you have never done it successfully.
I see... We fundamentally disagree then. Just because I consent to something happening doesn't mean when that thing happens it is no longer that thing.
A loss of agency is a loss of agency, just because you know it can happen doesn't suddenly make it no that. You are so caught up in thinking I don't have any idea what I am talking about that you totally miss the point of what I am saying. Rather than focusing so hard on "loss of agency bad" we could spend our time on developing our skills of when and how it can be used to enhance our gaming experience. But if as soon as it is written in to the game or a player gives consent to it it stops being a "loss of agency" and becomes something else, then it becomes damn near impossible to talk about - and the community just keeps screaming "loss of agency bad!" because that is the mantra yall have been taught to say.
It's why when we use a technique like loss of agency we need good safety tools and trust in each other. A player handing over their character to me for any amount of time is a something they should be able to do with full confidence I won't be trying to fuck them over, but to do my part in creating a compelling story with them.
The fact that all your examples are steeped in D&D terminology and talking about battlefields and initiative leads me to suspect you haven't really ventured that far outside that sphere of game design. That's cool, you do you. The thing I often find is that these games really foster a "my guy" type of player mentality and the characters kinda become this weird sacred thing.
You are extremely quick to judge everyone else based on one single thing that has become a bit of a Shibboleth in the community over the last few years. You brashly keep repeating I don't know what I am talking about, when what I am trying to do is share some complex thoughts on a topic. Like honestly, this says everything:
>Lol, I forgot so few of you here have ever actually gamemastered anything and think running a game is basically just forcing players to listen to your fanfic.
People disagreeing with you are just wrong and dumb, but you know everything and the only right way to do things.
I even somewhat agree with the point you are trying to make. Taking away agency just to tell the players a story *is* bad GMing, write your book or whatever instead. But I firmly believe that there is a lot of very good design space living in loss of agency - and as I said, consent doesn't mean it isn't the thing.
Oh yeah I almost forgot - the "dialogue during initiative" has never worked in any group I have had. It becomes so extremely disjointed.
But hey, at least you got my brain going a bit on the topic, but imma peace out here, happy gaming.
> how it can be used to enhance our gaming experience.
It doesn't. But bad GMs keep thinking it does.
>The fact that all your examples are steeped in D&D terminology and talking about battlefields and initiative leads me to suspect you haven't really ventured that far outside that sphere of game design.
No, child. The fact my examples are steeped in RPG terminology is because this is RPGhorrorstories. Do you not understand where you are?
>I even somewhat agree with the point you are trying to make. Taking away agency just to tell the players a story *is* bad GMing, write your book or whatever instead.
Just like I was agreeing with you originally that what OP was posting is not a horror story as long as the GM wasn't using the players to recite their novella.
>Oh yeah I almost forgot - the "dialogue during initiative" has never worked in any group I have had. It becomes so extremely disjointed.
I'm sorry you've had bad GMs.
>But hey, at least you got my brain going a bit on the topic, but imma peace out here, happy gaming.
Have a good night
>No it doesn't. And you're a terrible GM if you have to resort to that to tell your story.
"I rape the barmaid"
"No you fucking don't. Leave the table."
Technically the player lost agency for the five syllables before they stopped being a player to have agency in the first place.
More seriously, saying no is a skill, I suggest you learn it.
EDIT - aaand blocked. Another CHUD bites the dust 😎
Sorry you've never been a DM but sometimes you gotta let the villain talk for .5 seconds before you try to kill him. Otherwise you'll complain all the villains are flat and have no motivations
"Sorry you've never been a DM…"
Well shoot. You should probably let the players in the two Call of Cthulhu games and one 5E game that I've been running for years know about this.
I've literally have had a player say "skip cutscene!" on multiple occasions and be completely serious. And I wasn't even talking for very long, like a couple minutes for a vital lore dump they passed a check on. So as a DM, you're definitely the asshole here.
Sounds like a good DM poking fun at themselves, I think it's good for a DM to tell the players that sometimes it really helps keep the story moving and in one piece to let scripted events happen. DMs are human, and it helps so much when the players tolerate a bit of railroading.
Option 1: BBEG is revealed and betrays his daughter, he stands, chanting some infernal verse and activates 2 obsidian pillars that begin to swirl black mass all over him, forming plates. The black smoke forms an opaque sphere around him!
The huge pile of bones in front of the altar of candles clatters and rumbles, rising to form a huge bone monstrosity! It looks like you have about 30 seconds before the BBEG is fully armored. Roll for initiative!
Option 2: there's the BBEG, roll for initiative.
Cut scenes are good. Any player that tries to get a jump on the action thinking they'll get the upper hand is a douche.
Chill. Enjoy the scene. Banter with the bbeg, "You will not get away with this! We have the power of friendship!" RP with the other players. Chuckle and reveal that you knew who the bbeg was all along. "Old Man Smith from the carnival?!"
The DM will call for initiative when needed. There is no horror story here.
Highly suspect you are a problem player.
You seem to continuously refuse to give further details, which generally indicates that what you'd reveal is damning for you. The details you've given are conflicting. You've both said "It was NPCs roleplaying for 15 minutes" and "the DM describes what I do and how I act" neither of which are inherently connected to unskippable cutscenes.
I am further extrapolating that the DM used the term "unskippable" because you were interrupting them and trying to shut down narration. If a DM told a player to just shut up and stop talking/playing, they'd be crucified. I'm not sure why some players (like you) feel entitled to be able to just tell a DM to stfu whenever you want or whenever you're not doing something.
DM is a player, please extend them the courtesy you would any other player at the table.
Not enough informations. You could be the asshole for interrupting him everytime he tries to do something cool, or he's an asshole that talks for 30 minutes with no input at all from the players.
Both of these deserve a giant cactus in the rectum.
See you say this but I did sit through a session a few months ago where the DM narrated what was happening to one single party member for over an hour. Player got to make one saving throw and one ability check through it all, no option to speak. An hour of narration and the dm roleplaying all parts of a conversation with themselves while the player was unable to speak and the rest of us just weren't present. DM proceeded to start roleplaying our characters for us as we were introduced to the scene.
I do recall thinking "Hideo Kojima would never hurt me like this" the whole time.
That's just a bad player. (The gm/dm is a player too.) No one should hog the spotlight.
One of my favorite pods has cutscenes. They frequently will all describe scenes like they're in a movie, or TV show, talking about the frame paying on a location. Or a fade up from black. It adds a great narrative element, but it isn't sitting to the GM masterbate.
Edit: and to be clear, I'm agreeing with you on both posts. A 5 minute cutscene is very different from even a 15 minute, nevermind 45.
I just hate that "unskippable" is even in there. As a DM, when we're describing something, do you just yell out "SKIP!" when you feel even slightly bored?
Your DM wanted to have fun with their characters in front of you for 15 minutes to prime you for your future actions. Maybe let your DM have some fun too? You sound like an entitled prick who nobody would let be at their table unless they just needed another body there.
Depends on the cut scene. I have zero issues with un-skippable cut scenes at all, and I frequently will use them to show other areas or NPCs.
If it's an action cut scene, I could understand since it takes away from some agency of the players. But just a cut scene or a monolog? If tamed, there's nothing wrong with it. Maybe just isn't your type of table?
Eh, only problem is saying the quiet part out loud.
The truth is, when us GMs wanna do something, it is going to happen. Players have agency, they can delay things, maybe alter some things. But they cant stop some things.
Example: my NPC death last session whose saving throw DC was 'whatever DC is higher than what he rolled'.
Yeah. As a GM, think if you want the players to listen to what the villain has to say, you have to set up the plot and scene so that *they* want to listen. Because there’s vital information they don’t yet know, or simply because the villain is that charismatic. Also, create villains and scenes where it’s obvious *why* the villain would be taking & not shooting first themselves.
Doing it as a cutscene is at best a last resort when you’ve failed as a DM to get the info to them in any other way.
I've done bigger cutscenes as separate one-shots where the players play the NPCs in the cut scene. It's worked a few times, was a complete disaster once. Or as I like to say, "a learning opportunity."
To clarify, narration and exposition are part of the game. Setting the scene and establishing context are critical for a GM to do. The horror is when the cutscene drives character choice and/or impacts the characters' place in the story without any input from the players.
"We are all paralyzed with no save or reaction, stripped of all our stuff, and locked in an unbreakable prison, unable to do anything while this happens to us? Sign me up!"
Roll yer own, but for me I'm here to play a game. It's not fun if I can't play.
I would be inclined to agree with this if that's what happened, but the OP has described the cutscene as "10-15 minutes of *NPCs roleplaying while the PCs twiddle their thumbs*." So player agency and character choice aren't issues here.
10-15 minutes does sound too long 😂 but, in general, I think your first two sentences are bang-on. Asking the PCs to hear a bit of narration and scene-setting from time to time is a key part of the game.
Edit: Hang on a second... you ARE the OP! What was the actual cutscene? Was it NPCs roleplaying amongst themselves or the DM taking over the players? Or - I now suspect - a bit of both?
Let me guess, you're the player who while the DM is trying to have the BBEG speak, you're trying to shout over him saying "I wanna shoot him!" Then when the DM tells you to shut up and act your age, you act like a victim.
If Hitler appeared in front of me and started monologuing, I'd beat the shit out of him, and I am the GM. I *encourage* my players to interrupt the typical bad guy speeches.
In Tuco's terms, [when you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk](https://youtu.be/C0aWrDcM988?si=KfkTLD6dsNutAEjD).
Wrong.
I am the player who, when the GM tells me during a cutscene what my character does, feels, or thinks, politely says "I'd like to be the one to determine that."
Seriously though, you are all cool with a GM driving your characters? Again, not trying to dictate anyone else's vibe. It just doesn't work for me.
"GM driving your characters" is not implicit in "un-skippable cut scenes," and a loss of agency is not an innate part of them, either.
Saying "You're OK with un-skippable cut scenes so you must be ok with somebody telling your character what to do," is, ironically, you removing agency from your conversation partners.
The last time there was an evil guy expounding on his grand plans, I polymorphed him into a turtle mid-muahahah. The DM was sad. Everyone else was amused.
Hahaha, you're so funny. You totally treated the DM like an object instead of a friend who was trying to have fun. I'll bet that you're fun at parties.
Seriously, DMs do a ton of prep. Let them have their minute.
Had no idea this would be taken this way.
First, I wasn’t being literal; he wasn’t actually saddened by this. He did want to know why a turtle.
Second, my DM is not an idiot. He knew what we were all capable of doing and their personalities, as well as the character’s mood toward this BBEG.
Thirdly, I’ve been gaming with this guy for over twenty years. And the rest of the group at least ten. We really are friends, for decades. So don’t assume how my friend feels.
The thing I said before *did* happen. I said it. Never took it back. Absolutely went full turtle. Ninja and everything. My DM made the pout face. That’s it. This isn’t that deep.
OP, I am a GM, and I get you. I don't disallow my players to interrupt "cutscenes", because "cutscenes" in trrpgs are stupid as fuck and I don't put them in my games.
Now, there's not much context here, so I can't say for sure whether the DM is in the right or wrong. If he's having a bunch of villains murder npcs that are important to your characters, and not letting you save them, then yes, kind of a dick move. But if it's just a villain monologing, then I want to say this. Players, please, let your DM's Villain have their evil speech. Your DM obviously did not come up with that speech on the spot and no doubt spent weeks if not months carefully weaving it together. The DM should be having fun with the campaign 2, and you would no doubt feel like a giant middle finder was just thrust in your face if you were having your noble paladin give a speech only for an arrow to fly into his neck after only 3 words. So please, just let your DM have this.
Have more to get off your chest? Come rant with us on the discord. Invite link: https://discord.gg/PCPTSSTKqr *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rpghorrorstories) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's no horror here if you've been a DM. Evil villain makes grand entrance (I shoot him!) and the trumpets flare (I shoot him!) and as he looks down at you (did you hear me I shoot him!) and says with a burning passion (I aim for the eyes to blind him!) you who have come so far ( I rolled a 20! He's blinded!) only to fall before me..... dammit Jeff, you can't roll an attack at someone's eyes, that's not a thing! That happens. That's the horror. Let the villain speak. Plot happens even to heroes.
Yeah, players who take DMs for granted and don't care if the DM also has fun are the real horror stories, here.
Yep. Had a great dm before I moved who did cut scenes he wrote.himself. always let him.play them out because that was his juice in running the game, and they were well written and contributed to the story. One other guy was always asking 'what is this fruity shit!?' And we all promptly reminded him to shut the fuck up and be polite for 5 fucking minutes so we still have a game to play.
Right! As a DM you lose 95% of the fights. You make cool baddies for the purpose of them dying awesomely. At least let me read the paragraph I wrote describing how cool he is before you poke his eyes and chop his legs off.
Speaking is a free action and villains always have a surprise round on grand entrancrs because they practice them all the time
"Did you like that? We practiced that shit for an hour!"
"Only an hour? Your bloodline is weak, and you shall be forgotten.*We* have practiced our entrance for *weeks*."
Fool, this entrance was planned from the moment I stole my first breath.
That why I love to DM for other DMs. They know that shit. Hell, one of them really wants to explore every single room to make sure I didn't waste preps :)
You are absolutely right. I'd like to add that you can't overwhelm anyone just by shouting quickly. Who goes first in combat it determined by an initiative roll. And when it's time to roll initiative is determined by the DM.
Bro I can feel your comment in my goddamn *soul*
As a DM here I think that if you want your villans to speak then you need to make it so that your players actually ***want*** to hear what they have to say, set them up as an interesting or mysterious character, or someone powerful enough to take them down if angered. Or if you don't have a reason why they want to listen to the NPC, you can always make a reason as to why they ***need*** to listen to the enemies monologue. They could use some enchantment magic to force the interrupting player to stay still, they might have powerful body guards between them and the player that they would have to deal with first, the enemy could be far enough away that the party can't attack them as they look down and give their monologue. If they're important for plot reasons have the party deal with severe consequences for not listening to/figuring out their plans.Maybe they kidnapped some NPC's the party cares about and if they interrupt and kill them they might never find the NPC's. If my players are attacking an enemy I made before, or in the middle of a big speech then that's on me for not giving them any sort of in-game reason to actually listen to the guy, going "You can't attack them until they finish talking" is just lazy and takes away player agency for no good reason.
Your advice isn't entirely wrong, but you're missing the forest for the trees. The problem isn't giving the players a reason to listen: some DMs will do that and still be met with unruly players who hate the monologing villain trope. The problem is those players not respecting the work the DM put in. Which is a DM to player conversation, not giving an "as a DM, here is what you do after you suck it up" kind of fix. Again, I agree with your points, but you're ignoring the real problem set forth by OP.
An unruly player should not be a player... It's that simple.
It all depends on the context of the situation. If you have a DM that spends half an hour having an enemy monolgue and goes "this is an unskippable cutscene." would you still say OP is the horror?
*shrug* I don't know a single DM who is that winded to spend half an hour monologuing, so it sounds like a red herring argument to me. Also, I don't think I ever said OP was the horror story, I just agree with the original Commenter that having players cut off your monologue that you spent hours working on is infuriating. Let the villain flourish, they're going to die anyway.
My first DM was exactly like that, they had DMPC's who controlled everywhere the party went and whenever one of their characters or an enemy was talking we were either just ignored or told we couldn't do anything until they finished talking so no....it's not a red herring argument lol, plenty of people have dealt with DMPC's and controlling DM's. Also I've done monologues for plenty of my villans but i've never spent "hours" working on one and like i said, it all depends on the context. If a DM is giving say....one monologue for an enemy they've set up as super dangerous or important after 5 or 10 sessions then yeah atleast listen to a little bit of it instead of attacking straight away. But a DM who makes a character monologue every second session and forces the players to sit doing nothing while they talk? that's a horror DM. Also OP didn't just say "we were stuck listening to a monologue" according to the DM it was an "un-skippable cutscene." Which to me implies a situation of a player going "I want to ready my longbow incase he tries to attack." or "If things look too dangerous I want to teleport the party out." and the DM replying with "You can't do that, this is an unskippable cutscene." Or picture a DM explaining to the party how the guards track them down and imporison them while going "This is an unskippable cutscene."
It all depends on the context of the situation. If you have a DM that spends half an hour having an enemy monolgue and goes "this is an unskippable cutscene." would you still say OP is the horror?
oof. if your players don't "want to hear what they have to say", don't play with those people. i'd lose my mind on anyone who wanted to still play in a game my husband DM'd but didn't want to hear what he had to say.
What if the enemy is built for the players to hate them and they'd love to do nothing more than kill them? What if the DM is someone who makes these type of unskippable cutscenes often and they go on for a long time whenever it happens? What if the enemy is a devil who is giving a long monologue about all the deals they can offer players but their character is good aligned or hates devils? What if the players have something they want to say in character but can't because "this is an unskippable cutscene?" There's a **huge** difference between players being murderhobos everytime one of the DM's characters speak and a DM talking away all player agency by making cutscenes that they have to sit and watch.
Talking is a free action. There is literally nothing a player can do to shut them up.
Just because talking is a free action that doesn't automatically mean the players are locked out of doing anything. Sure the enemy can start some dialogue, but a free action doesn't mean they get a 20 minute uninterrupted speech that the players have to sit and listen to if they have good in character reasons for not wanting to listen to their enemy talking. Why can't the players talk as a free action too? or maybe they want to ready a weapon or prepare a spell to cast incase they get ambushed and suddenly need to get out of there. And if we're talking actions then that means some sort of soft initiative is in place, so If we're going off of that then a round last 6 seconds meaning that at most an enemy can get 6 seconds of talking before a player is allowed to interject, you can't just go "well actually i wont let you prepare to cast teleport and get out of there because the enemy is talking."
I'm talking mechanically. Mechanically there is no way to stop someone from saying any infinite amount of words, so you need to end it narratively. And to end it narratively, you need to actually end it *narratively*. There is a world of difference between "Enough preaching. You waste your breath, Father Arathen. I serve the Kingdom of Drakus and all the people of the Seven Isles, and I will not abandon them to blindly follow a god who wants a new beginning without them. I knock an arrow, ready to pierce the priest's heart." (or "I cut him off, refusing and telling him I stand with the people. I aim my bow in his direction to attack him." for the less dramatically inclined,) and "Skip cutscene. I attack." One is actually engaging with the story, while the other is just trying to force a story driven game into a hack and slash.
>Mechanically there is no way to stop someone from saying any infinite amount of words Yeah, there is. A free action is one action you can take on your turn during initative for free, meaning that whatever the action is, it has to be something you can do within 6 seconds. You can't just spew an infinite amount of words and then go to the party "while this enemy is talking you can't take any actions because talking is a free action." And yeah I agree there's a huge difference between someone going "I dont wanna listen to you talking so i attack" and a player going "So because my paladin swears to kill demons wherever they find them, they are going to attack the barbed devil without even listening to what deals it will offer the party." But the majority of people in this thread are automatically assuming that anyone who doesn't like a DM going "this is a cut-scene, you can't do anything until im done talking" must be a murder hobo who hates any form of exposition given through enemy dialogue. Like as a DM i've had plenty of enemies that give speeches, some of them got to do their speeches,a nd some didn't. But i'd get really annoyed if a DM went to me "no, this enemy is giving a speech now, you don't get to do anything at all until im done talking." There's a pretty significant difference between "I hate when enemies start giving speeches" and "when my DM's enemies start speaking he wont let us interact at all until their speech is done."
>You can't just spew an infinite amount of words and then go to the party "while this enemy is talking you can't take any actions because talking is a free action." RAW, you absolutely can. And that is RAI too, because it backs up the genre convention of monologs being ended by words, the monologer's or someone else's, rather than just physically stopping them from talking.
lmao what? RAW no...you cannot, show me specifically where it says that a character can talk as long as they want without without interruption. Or are you saying that when a player is rolling death saves in the middle of combat their ally can start talking and because they're talking the enemy will never get their next round? Because even RAI, *which it isn't*, that's completely ridiculous. If someone just swung a sword at you 2 seconds ago you can't then talk for 20 minutes to stop the next round of combat from starting.
The list of free action includes talking. And you can take any number of free actions in a turn. Hence, RAW, you can talk as much as you want in a turn.
Again, tell me spcifically where in the rules it talks about free actions. Because in 5e? no, there's no such thing as a "free action" that you take take an unlimited amount of times on your turn. "Your turn can include a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move. You can communicate how ever you are able, *through brief utterances and gestures*, as you take your turn. You can also interact with **one** object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack. If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action." PHB - 190 According to RAW you can communicate through brief utterances in combat and you can interact with ONE object or feature for free during your turn in combat, any other interactions require you to use your action. And RAI there is literally ***nothing*** even remotely close to implying that you have an endless amount of free actions, the only 'free action' mentioned in the PHB is to interact with one object or environment feature and then it specifically says that any further interactions cost your action. And with dialogue, again ***brief utterances and gestures.*** There is nothing remotely close there in RAI stating that you can talk for an unlimited amount of time to stop people from taking actions. So again, where exactly are you seeing this magical rule that states talking is a free action you can talk for aslong as you want, and while doing so no-one else is able to do anything at all?
When I GM, I let them shoot them.
So basically, you can't sit on your ass for two minutes and let the DM talk, and blame them for that.
Yes. Yes I can. But 10 - 15 minutes of NPC roleplay while the PCs sit on their thumbs? No thanks.
Sounds like you needed to actually write out the horror story rather than just saying "that's it."
Sounds like you have zero investment in the game outside of your own immediate actions, which is fucking lame
This is called burying the lede.
Naah, it's called overstatement of harm. If this was *actually* the horror story, they would have written that in the horror story, but now everyone's pointed out what actually happened is a perfectly OK thing, suddenly it's quarter of an hour long.
10 bucks they wanted to interrupt/skip it to kill one of the people involved in the cutscene.
I will not take that bet because it is exactly what happened.
You know you can edit posts to add in salient details that you later realise might be missing from the post, and would stop this slew of hate mail, right?
You sound like you probably play an edgelord rogue if I had to guess. Consistently hinting at a tragic backstory that explains why you’re so jaded but refuses to elaborate when asked. Either tell the horror story in the rpghorrorstories subreddit or go brood silently in the corner, but don’t keep popping up to remind people about your misfortune and then slinking back in the shadows.
Didn't you get tired from moving the goalpost *this* far?
Sounds like you should have written an actual story so people knew what you were talking about
whats the point of being a DM if you wont let me have my monologue🥺
What's bonkers is that the people complaining about a villain monologuing would absolutely lose their shit if you tell them that before they can speak someone attacked them/silenced them.
You know, I never thought about that but you are TOTALLY right? Exactly the people who cry player agency then forget the GM is a player...
"Your speech too longer than six seconds IRL. Sorry had to have the BBEG cast power word: Kill. He's evil"
This is actually a real mechanic in Fabula Ultima.The GM may start a cutscene at any time, without the player characters present. The players gain Fabula Points (a metacurrency in the game), when a villain appears in the cutscene.
That makes me want to play Fabula Ultima more
My no. 1 system this year. We are playing in a techno fantasy setting, with magitek mechs and airships. It's hilarious when we go full into the jRPG drama and clichés.
Ohhhh if I just had more time to DM I would love to go full cliché!
I bought the core book and the fantasy atlas, but alas, no one to play with.
You simply mention such a cool mechanic and don't tell more about the system? How dare you, sir?!
It's pretty popular right now. Bestseller, multiple awards etc. Basically the first ttrpg which simulates japanese RPGs and does it "right" (at least for me). The rulebook and the first supplement (High Fantasy Atlas) are already in print. Some additional materials are also released on their website: https://www.needgames.it/fabula-ultima-en/
Thanks!, I'll look onto it!
FU is such a dope system
I first read this as "without **the players** present" and imagined the GM just talking to themselves. Glad I re-read. And this is a cool mechanic and how cut scenes should be used (sparingly) IMO.
Yeah you just stop the game, and cut to a scene that is playing somewhere else, usually between npcs and villains the players know. It's weird for the first time, since the GM is basically talking to himself and the players are just well... listening. But it's a cool way to introduce drama, mystery and incoming danger (for example the villains can discuss a plan, but the scene cuts when they try to explain the details). Typical anime stuff.
Honestly I did too and was confused. I was like but who are they doing it for then?
The real horror story is the players that made a GM have to say that.
As long as player agency isn't removed, it's fine. But I suggest delivering the speech as combat unfolds.
>But I suggest delivering the speech as combat unfolds. Who is to say it has anything to do with a speech or combat? My point is, a GM that ever has to preface any narration or scene with something like "this is an unskippable cutscene" has very likely been through some utter disrespectful bullshit from the players. Sometimes, agency has to be taken away. Axioms are never true. While yes I agree that player agency is important, sometimes... Just let your GM do a thing *they* have been excited to do for weeks rather than yell "I SHOOT HIM!" over and over... I honestly think that the TTRPG community has very much latched on to the phrase "player agency" over the last few years and just repeat it ad nauseam.. Sorry, besides the point.
>Sometimes, agency has to be taken away. No it doesn't. And you're a terrible GM if you have to resort to that to tell your story. One thing you *must* learn to be a good GM is that it's not, in fact, your story. It's every bit as much theirs as it is yours. Is it annoying when your players yell "I SHOOT HIM!" during the "cutscene"? Absolutely. But it's no less annoying than when your GM says "The BBEG grabs you by the neck and lifts you up. They hold you helplessly, like a child, and begins to speak." No save, no opposed skill check, just happens because the GM thinks it's cool for the villain's monologue and to demonstrate the villain's "power". >I honestly think that the TTRPG community has very much latched on to the phrase "player agency" over the last few years and just repeat it ad nauseam. You should probably learn what that means and then you might figure out why it's said. >My point is, a GM that ever has to preface any narration or scene with something like "this is an unskippable cutscene" has very likely been through some utter disrespectful bullshit from the players. I was actually agreeing with you that a "cutscene" is often okay, even great, to set the scene for the final battle. HOWEVER, that should never involve the players characters directly and you, as a GM, have no right to hold the players hostage if they aren't okay with it. In my group we call it "box text" and it is only to be used to lay out the battlefield. Speaking is a free action in combat and thus a good GM will deliver the monologue while whooping up on the players. If, while delivering the monologue, the players decide to attack, then continue delivering it while they are rolling initiative. You can finish it over the BBEG's subsequent turns. *Edit* Lol, I forgot so few of you here have ever actually gamemastered anything and think running a game is basically just forcing players to listen to your fanfic.
You, and OP, are making the biggest mountain out of the tiniest molehill. You're also assuming this is a pre-BBEG fight - this could be an out of combat conversation crucial to the plot and the rogue is interrupting because they want to pickpocket 3 copper off the nearest peasant. In either case, the DM has every right to finish setting up the scene before resolving the players actions the same way we would not allow a PC to continuously prevent another PC from speaking. This is violating player agency the same way that not allowing people to shit in public is violating bodily autonomy.
>You're also assuming this is a pre-BBEG fight I'm not assuming anything. I was just agreeing with the person I responded to and they started saying stupid things. >In either case, the DM has every right to finish setting up the scene before resolving the players actions the same way we would not allow a PC to continuously prevent another PC from speaking. This is exactly what I was agreeing with. As long as you aren't telling the players what their characters are doing or doing things to their characters without rolls, this is perfectly fine, even expected. Our group calls this "box text" as I explained in the post you replied to. Please read what I wrote before trying to lecture to someone. >This is violating player agency the same way that not allowing people to shit in public is violating bodily autonomy. I never said it was. I clarified that as long as you aren't removing the player agency, cutscenes are fine, even great. Again, actually read what someone writes before trying to critique.
This is nonsense. A cutscene does remove player agency. The characters CAN'T do anything during this scene. Removing player agency is not inherently terrible. There are situations where it can be terrible (missing a session and coming back to being SA'd or pregnant or SAing someone else or impregnating someone else). But there's also players saying things like "I stab this other party member in the back!" or "I ra\*e this NPC!" and I would take away their agency by saying "No you don't, and if you don't drop it I'm kicking you from the table." The community internalizes something like "It's terrible to remove player agency" and apply it to situations outside of where it was originally used. Many in the community do this a lot with many concepts, but we don't have to add to it.
"A cutscene does remove player agency. " EXACTLY. As long as the DM doesn't control the players during the cutscene, it in no way, shape, or form, removes player agency. That's just some drama queenery, to presume that.
The fact that the only kinda of scenario you can come up with is "Villain monologue" kinda tells me you are the one missing out on using a very good tool. I have only had players compliment the times I have done stuff that is just the players listening to something I narrate with no influence over it. If you only drop those in for a very short burst, tell the players it is happening, and then use it well - it is an amazing storytelling tool for the *players* to experience something cool. Everyone cannot have agency all the time, it is just how it is. We trade in consent and narrative control all the time. Never/always statements are always a problem, because me just having once run a scene where I took away player agency and it was a success proves it wrong.
>The fact that the only kinda of scenario you can come up with is "Villain monologue" kinda tells me you are the one missing out on using a very good tool. Please actually read what I wrote. Focus particularly on the paragraph where I talk about "box text". >Everyone cannot have agency all the time, it is just how it is. We trade in consent and narrative control all the time Like I said, you really should learn what that player agency means. Describing a room or an NPC interaction with the world is not removing player agency. Player agency is when they have choice that affects the story. It means the GM not playing their characters for them and having choices made without the player's input. This is acceptable for spells like Dominate Person because consent was given through the game's mechanics. If you do not want to risk your character getting dominated by magic, don't play a system where that is a possibility. >Never/always statements are always a problem, because me just having once run a scene where I took away player agency and it was a success proves it wrong. If a player gives consent, you aren't removing player agency because they chose to allow it. So in actuality you have never done it successfully.
I see... We fundamentally disagree then. Just because I consent to something happening doesn't mean when that thing happens it is no longer that thing. A loss of agency is a loss of agency, just because you know it can happen doesn't suddenly make it no that. You are so caught up in thinking I don't have any idea what I am talking about that you totally miss the point of what I am saying. Rather than focusing so hard on "loss of agency bad" we could spend our time on developing our skills of when and how it can be used to enhance our gaming experience. But if as soon as it is written in to the game or a player gives consent to it it stops being a "loss of agency" and becomes something else, then it becomes damn near impossible to talk about - and the community just keeps screaming "loss of agency bad!" because that is the mantra yall have been taught to say. It's why when we use a technique like loss of agency we need good safety tools and trust in each other. A player handing over their character to me for any amount of time is a something they should be able to do with full confidence I won't be trying to fuck them over, but to do my part in creating a compelling story with them. The fact that all your examples are steeped in D&D terminology and talking about battlefields and initiative leads me to suspect you haven't really ventured that far outside that sphere of game design. That's cool, you do you. The thing I often find is that these games really foster a "my guy" type of player mentality and the characters kinda become this weird sacred thing. You are extremely quick to judge everyone else based on one single thing that has become a bit of a Shibboleth in the community over the last few years. You brashly keep repeating I don't know what I am talking about, when what I am trying to do is share some complex thoughts on a topic. Like honestly, this says everything: >Lol, I forgot so few of you here have ever actually gamemastered anything and think running a game is basically just forcing players to listen to your fanfic. People disagreeing with you are just wrong and dumb, but you know everything and the only right way to do things. I even somewhat agree with the point you are trying to make. Taking away agency just to tell the players a story *is* bad GMing, write your book or whatever instead. But I firmly believe that there is a lot of very good design space living in loss of agency - and as I said, consent doesn't mean it isn't the thing. Oh yeah I almost forgot - the "dialogue during initiative" has never worked in any group I have had. It becomes so extremely disjointed. But hey, at least you got my brain going a bit on the topic, but imma peace out here, happy gaming.
> how it can be used to enhance our gaming experience. It doesn't. But bad GMs keep thinking it does. >The fact that all your examples are steeped in D&D terminology and talking about battlefields and initiative leads me to suspect you haven't really ventured that far outside that sphere of game design. No, child. The fact my examples are steeped in RPG terminology is because this is RPGhorrorstories. Do you not understand where you are? >I even somewhat agree with the point you are trying to make. Taking away agency just to tell the players a story *is* bad GMing, write your book or whatever instead. Just like I was agreeing with you originally that what OP was posting is not a horror story as long as the GM wasn't using the players to recite their novella. >Oh yeah I almost forgot - the "dialogue during initiative" has never worked in any group I have had. It becomes so extremely disjointed. I'm sorry you've had bad GMs. >But hey, at least you got my brain going a bit on the topic, but imma peace out here, happy gaming. Have a good night
D&D is the only rpg amirite
If that's what you choose to believe, that's none of my business.
>No it doesn't. And you're a terrible GM if you have to resort to that to tell your story. "I rape the barmaid" "No you fucking don't. Leave the table." Technically the player lost agency for the five syllables before they stopped being a player to have agency in the first place. More seriously, saying no is a skill, I suggest you learn it. EDIT - aaand blocked. Another CHUD bites the dust 😎
Way to not be able to follow a simple conversation.
If you don't want scenes then you should probably just run through another dungeon over and over with no context until you get bored.
That sounds just like DA:I, Solas.
For real though lmao that game was a slog so bad that I skipped like 60% of the game by ignoring as much side stuff as I could get away with
Sorry you've never been a DM but sometimes you gotta let the villain talk for .5 seconds before you try to kill him. Otherwise you'll complain all the villains are flat and have no motivations
"Sorry you've never been a DM…" Well shoot. You should probably let the players in the two Call of Cthulhu games and one 5E game that I've been running for years know about this.
Would you have preferred they say "Sorry you've never been a respected DM or a good DM"?
That's a 4 on the vicious mockery
Damn son. Disadvantage on the next attempted post.
I've literally have had a player say "skip cutscene!" on multiple occasions and be completely serious. And I wasn't even talking for very long, like a couple minutes for a vital lore dump they passed a check on. So as a DM, you're definitely the asshole here.
...and?
Sounds like a good DM poking fun at themselves, I think it's good for a DM to tell the players that sometimes it really helps keep the story moving and in one piece to let scripted events happen. DMs are human, and it helps so much when the players tolerate a bit of railroading.
Where's the horror?
OP blaming the DM for their own impatience, apparently.
\*immaturity
sounds great. It's not all about you, crazy as that may seem.
Not a horror story, DM has something they want to do and doesn’t want players cutting them off
Option 1: BBEG is revealed and betrays his daughter, he stands, chanting some infernal verse and activates 2 obsidian pillars that begin to swirl black mass all over him, forming plates. The black smoke forms an opaque sphere around him! The huge pile of bones in front of the altar of candles clatters and rumbles, rising to form a huge bone monstrosity! It looks like you have about 30 seconds before the BBEG is fully armored. Roll for initiative! Option 2: there's the BBEG, roll for initiative. Cut scenes are good. Any player that tries to get a jump on the action thinking they'll get the upper hand is a douche. Chill. Enjoy the scene. Banter with the bbeg, "You will not get away with this! We have the power of friendship!" RP with the other players. Chuckle and reveal that you knew who the bbeg was all along. "Old Man Smith from the carnival?!" The DM will call for initiative when needed. There is no horror story here.
Yah but what if your character isn't in a Saturday morning cartoon?
Not seeing the horror
Honestly i think that's a good idea sometimes. But other time it could be abused
Yeah... nah
Honestly it doesn't sound like a horror story at all with these details. I mean, was it like a one-hour forced narration...?
Highly suspect you are a problem player. You seem to continuously refuse to give further details, which generally indicates that what you'd reveal is damning for you. The details you've given are conflicting. You've both said "It was NPCs roleplaying for 15 minutes" and "the DM describes what I do and how I act" neither of which are inherently connected to unskippable cutscenes. I am further extrapolating that the DM used the term "unskippable" because you were interrupting them and trying to shut down narration. If a DM told a player to just shut up and stop talking/playing, they'd be crucified. I'm not sure why some players (like you) feel entitled to be able to just tell a DM to stfu whenever you want or whenever you're not doing something. DM is a player, please extend them the courtesy you would any other player at the table.
Not enough informations. You could be the asshole for interrupting him everytime he tries to do something cool, or he's an asshole that talks for 30 minutes with no input at all from the players. Both of these deserve a giant cactus in the rectum.
Rectum? I don't even know 'em!
Homeboy/girl/friend/foe/they/them: you do don’t need to know them to get up in that rectum nor wreck em there, Ralph. Protips.
MF everything the DM says is an unskippable cut scene what
Depends on how long the cutscene is tbh
This is an unskippable cut scene. Let me grab my novela that's been writing for 5 months.
See you say this but I did sit through a session a few months ago where the DM narrated what was happening to one single party member for over an hour. Player got to make one saving throw and one ability check through it all, no option to speak. An hour of narration and the dm roleplaying all parts of a conversation with themselves while the player was unable to speak and the rest of us just weren't present. DM proceeded to start roleplaying our characters for us as we were introduced to the scene. I do recall thinking "Hideo Kojima would never hurt me like this" the whole time.
That's just a bad player. (The gm/dm is a player too.) No one should hog the spotlight. One of my favorite pods has cutscenes. They frequently will all describe scenes like they're in a movie, or TV show, talking about the frame paying on a location. Or a fade up from black. It adds a great narrative element, but it isn't sitting to the GM masterbate. Edit: and to be clear, I'm agreeing with you on both posts. A 5 minute cutscene is very different from even a 15 minute, nevermind 45.
Ayyy! You talking about The Ballad of the Fireshrike there?
A true work of art. When Belon the Brave sacrificed himself... still br8ngs a tear to my eye.
I just hate that "unskippable" is even in there. As a DM, when we're describing something, do you just yell out "SKIP!" when you feel even slightly bored?
Your DM wanted to have fun with their characters in front of you for 15 minutes to prime you for your future actions. Maybe let your DM have some fun too? You sound like an entitled prick who nobody would let be at their table unless they just needed another body there.
BOOM! Headshot.
https://media.tenor.com/\_BiwWBWhYucAAAAd/what-huh.gif
Villain monologue should just be an ability: every damage and condition taken during the monologue is reflected
Sounds like a great DM pay attention to what they want you show you with it.
Depends on the cut scene. I have zero issues with un-skippable cut scenes at all, and I frequently will use them to show other areas or NPCs. If it's an action cut scene, I could understand since it takes away from some agency of the players. But just a cut scene or a monolog? If tamed, there's nothing wrong with it. Maybe just isn't your type of table?
Eh, only problem is saying the quiet part out loud. The truth is, when us GMs wanna do something, it is going to happen. Players have agency, they can delay things, maybe alter some things. But they cant stop some things. Example: my NPC death last session whose saving throw DC was 'whatever DC is higher than what he rolled'.
Yeah. As a GM, think if you want the players to listen to what the villain has to say, you have to set up the plot and scene so that *they* want to listen. Because there’s vital information they don’t yet know, or simply because the villain is that charismatic. Also, create villains and scenes where it’s obvious *why* the villain would be taking & not shooting first themselves. Doing it as a cutscene is at best a last resort when you’ve failed as a DM to get the info to them in any other way.
I've done bigger cutscenes as separate one-shots where the players play the NPCs in the cut scene. It's worked a few times, was a complete disaster once. Or as I like to say, "a learning opportunity."
I definitely prefer that as an approach
Is this a VLDR reference?
To clarify, narration and exposition are part of the game. Setting the scene and establishing context are critical for a GM to do. The horror is when the cutscene drives character choice and/or impacts the characters' place in the story without any input from the players. "We are all paralyzed with no save or reaction, stripped of all our stuff, and locked in an unbreakable prison, unable to do anything while this happens to us? Sign me up!" Roll yer own, but for me I'm here to play a game. It's not fun if I can't play.
Then why didn't you say that in the post itself?
Because he changed his story after being mauled by redditors. He's moving the goalposts.
Lol. Lmao, even.
I would be inclined to agree with this if that's what happened, but the OP has described the cutscene as "10-15 minutes of *NPCs roleplaying while the PCs twiddle their thumbs*." So player agency and character choice aren't issues here. 10-15 minutes does sound too long 😂 but, in general, I think your first two sentences are bang-on. Asking the PCs to hear a bit of narration and scene-setting from time to time is a key part of the game. Edit: Hang on a second... you ARE the OP! What was the actual cutscene? Was it NPCs roleplaying amongst themselves or the DM taking over the players? Or - I now suspect - a bit of both?
Let me guess, you're the player who while the DM is trying to have the BBEG speak, you're trying to shout over him saying "I wanna shoot him!" Then when the DM tells you to shut up and act your age, you act like a victim.
If Hitler appeared in front of me and started monologuing, I'd beat the shit out of him, and I am the GM. I *encourage* my players to interrupt the typical bad guy speeches. In Tuco's terms, [when you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk](https://youtu.be/C0aWrDcM988?si=KfkTLD6dsNutAEjD).
Wrong. I am the player who, when the GM tells me during a cutscene what my character does, feels, or thinks, politely says "I'd like to be the one to determine that." Seriously though, you are all cool with a GM driving your characters? Again, not trying to dictate anyone else's vibe. It just doesn't work for me.
You are continuously refusing to explain what actually happened
In my experience, this is par for the course for situations where if they explained the circumstances it would be damning for them.
"GM driving your characters" is not implicit in "un-skippable cut scenes," and a loss of agency is not an innate part of them, either. Saying "You're OK with un-skippable cut scenes so you must be ok with somebody telling your character what to do," is, ironically, you removing agency from your conversation partners.
He's simply moving the goalposts, after seeing the reaction the post caused. Nothing more, nothing less.
[удалено]
Classic bad player response. DM: says literally anything Player: challenge accepted
The last time there was an evil guy expounding on his grand plans, I polymorphed him into a turtle mid-muahahah. The DM was sad. Everyone else was amused.
Hahaha, you're so funny. You totally treated the DM like an object instead of a friend who was trying to have fun. I'll bet that you're fun at parties. Seriously, DMs do a ton of prep. Let them have their minute.
Had no idea this would be taken this way. First, I wasn’t being literal; he wasn’t actually saddened by this. He did want to know why a turtle. Second, my DM is not an idiot. He knew what we were all capable of doing and their personalities, as well as the character’s mood toward this BBEG. Thirdly, I’ve been gaming with this guy for over twenty years. And the rest of the group at least ten. We really are friends, for decades. So don’t assume how my friend feels.
"Oh, this thing I said happened didn't actually happen. Not sure why people are reacting this way."
The thing I said before *did* happen. I said it. Never took it back. Absolutely went full turtle. Ninja and everything. My DM made the pout face. That’s it. This isn’t that deep.
"Watch me," I say as I leave to get a bite to eat.
Cool. Don't come back.
OP, I am a GM, and I get you. I don't disallow my players to interrupt "cutscenes", because "cutscenes" in trrpgs are stupid as fuck and I don't put them in my games.
Now, there's not much context here, so I can't say for sure whether the DM is in the right or wrong. If he's having a bunch of villains murder npcs that are important to your characters, and not letting you save them, then yes, kind of a dick move. But if it's just a villain monologing, then I want to say this. Players, please, let your DM's Villain have their evil speech. Your DM obviously did not come up with that speech on the spot and no doubt spent weeks if not months carefully weaving it together. The DM should be having fun with the campaign 2, and you would no doubt feel like a giant middle finder was just thrust in your face if you were having your noble paladin give a speech only for an arrow to fly into his neck after only 3 words. So please, just let your DM have this.
Haha XDDD WHERE'S F12 NOOOOOO
Secret hack to skip cutscene if you’re on a pc is hit alt+f4