Then you haven't read the thread in its entirety before rushing to fulfill your need to insult me.
Some are saying monologues have no place at the table.
Just because the person I responded to might not be among them does not make my observations any less valid.
Beyond the people mischaracterizing the posts of others--yourself included--no one is actually saying that all monologues are bad.
If you apply basic critical reading, you'll notice that folks cage their posts with things like "generally" or "can be annoying" or "there might be better ways to accomplish the same goal"--all ways which leave open the possibility of monologuing being effective while acknowledging that they have problems. No one is saying that monologues are bad as a matter of course--just that they are tools which are often both overused and unprofessionally used and that can cause problems.
From the perspective of someone who generally likes a bit of monologuing both as DM and from my players (admittedly, my group regularly consists of lawyers and professional actors--both folks trained in how to monologue properly), I completely agree. The only thing worse than a bad monologue is a needlessly self-indulgent one, and those two have an incredible degree of overlap--they are a useful tool, but a dangerous one, and it is important for DMs to be extremely careful with their implementation.
Then you haven't read the thread in its entirety before rushing to fulfill your need to insult me.
Some are saying monologues have no place at the table.
Just because the person I responded to might not be among them does not make my observations any less valid.
Name one person who is saying that--I only see two people (possibly the same person--both are known alternate troll accounts and thus could be the same pilot) who are saying something along the lines of "all monologues are bad" and they are only doing so in the context of mischaracterizing what others are saying.
Everyone else cages their posts with things like "generally" or "can be annoying" or "there might be better ways to accomplish the same goal." No one is saying that monologues are bad as a matter of course--just that they are tools which are often both overused and unprofessionally used and that can cause problems.
From the perspective of someone who generally likes a bit of monologuing both as DM and from my players (admittedly, my group regularly consists of lawyers and professional actors--both folks trained in how to monologue properly), I completely agree. The only thing worse than a bad monologue is a needlessly self-indulgent one, and those two have an incredible degree of overlap--they are a useful tool, but a dangerous one, and it is important for DMs to be extremely careful with their implementation.
Some are self-indulgent pap. As are most long-winded character backstories by wannabe fantasy authors.
Do you not see how silly it is for people to be arguing if what you say is true and people are only saying only bad monologues are bad with which no one would disagree?
The original post said players should let the DM speak. It didn't have to degenerate into a pitched battle over what amounts to a good and a not-so-good monologue as if that's at all relevant to the point it is rude and disruptive to cut short a monologue that for we all we know might be worthy of a Laurence Olivier Award.
Some in this thread have argued that a monologue is not needed if a DM has "done his or her job" and already given players whatever a monologue might reveal anyway. (Are you seriously suggesting it's only "alternate troll accounts" arguing that? That's going to be news to them! I hope you can appreciate the irony of your suggesting I'm the one not paying attention.)
It's amazing how there's no one right way to play D&D except when people don't play it like some expect them to. Or maybe it's just that some just want to disagree because they'd rather argue.
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
As a DM, I never write monologues in advance. I know what my characters know and should say. I can improvise on the go with that information alone. It also allows for player interaction, but in that case it becomes a dialogue. I have an example of a BBEG speech I want to share that kind of subverts the monologue trope.
The players go to the BBEG's lair to stop him from opening a portal to the Abyss. His plan is to unleash a horde of demons in a city ruled under an evil regime. His goal is to put a stop to a tyranny that has oppressed the people for way too long. The demons will certainly put an end to it, but a lot of collateral damage is to be expected. It's basically the Godzilla Treshold trope. Is the nuclear option the only option that remains? When the players meet the BBEG, he starts monologuing (or dialoguing if the players participate). The catch is that he's never going to stop talking until he's interrupted. The whole thing is timed. Once the countdown reaches zero, the portal opens and demons begin to march. The longer it remains open, the more demons will wreak havoc on the city. The players may also choose to side with the BBEG and let the demons do their work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Age: 33 | Sex: Male | Languages: French and English | Roles: DM and Player
A DM puts countless hours into a campaign, and at the end, would like the players to indulge them for a couple minutes....and some people say the DM is being selfish.
Unbelievable.
It really isn't that unbelievable. The DM could very well be selfish.
Wanting to incorporate a monologue into a game is by no means being selfish, that is not what I mean. The selfishness is if the DM believes the players should innately know when a monologue is occurring vs when they should be actively engaging in play. If it has been made clear to the players, then yes, I agree they should be respectful. But if the DM expects the players to be aware of their script designs and know how to act accordingly (without any signaling), and it is the players' fault if things don't go as the DM planned, then yes I feel the DM is being selfish.
This is a game and collaborative exercise. The DM and players both put in time to help make the game better. Players plan out their feats, research spells, blue book and role play between sessions, and study game tactics. They may be very much aware that by listening to a 2 minute monologue then an effect or spell in place could end, or they should take advantage of this time to take an action so they don't have to expend one should combat start.
So much is going on through the minds of everyone at the table, and not knowing that there is a break from gameplay means you cannot expect participants to know they should disengage.
And that is where the selfishness can be. Its placing the onus on everyone else to know how to react without smarting them up on what is about to happen. This is why zero sessions, catch up sessions, and communications between sessions is so important. You can set rules and signaling so the players know when to gameplay and when to sit tight (and be assured they won't be punished for doing so).
Players should indulge a DM every now an then. But the DM should let the players know when they should indulge them, and not blame the players when they do not realize how to play out a scene if they are not privy to the script.
That is a measured take that I can get behind.
I will say however that the very same might apply among just the players.
Have you never observed one player rudely interrupt another as he or she is in the middle of saying something?
Absolutely. I agree. My comments above apply to players to as well. A player is not always correct when they speak. A player is equally selfish if they speak because they feel it is their right to. It is the player's responsibility to listen and react, only, when the situation justifies their response. Otherwise respect the other person speaking until they finish.
Absolutely. I agree. My comments above apply to players to as well. A player is not always correct when they speak. A player is equally selfish if they speak because they feel it is their right to. It is the player's responsibility to listen and react, only, when the situation justifies their response. Otherwise respect the other person speaking until they finish.
Absolutely.
I'm sure we've all seen tables that had to suffer a player who thought he or she was the protagonist. And I'm not just talking about the character he or she had.
In a world where players vastly outnumber DMs I'd wager money there are more players whose behavior is rude and disruptive—and that is really want the original post is about—than there are DMs delivering over-wrought monologues with little to no purpose.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
Then you haven't read the thread in its entirety before rushing to fulfill your need to insult me.
Some are saying monologues have no place at the table.
Just because the person I responded to might not be among them does not make my observations any less valid.
Beyond the people mischaracterizing the posts of others--yourself included--no one is actually saying that all monologues are bad.
If you apply basic critical reading, you'll notice that folks cage their posts with things like "generally" or "can be annoying" or "there might be better ways to accomplish the same goal"--all ways which leave open the possibility of monologuing being effective while acknowledging that they have problems. No one is saying that monologues are bad as a matter of course--just that they are tools which are often both overused and unprofessionally used and that can cause problems.
From the perspective of someone who generally likes a bit of monologuing both as DM and from my players (admittedly, my group regularly consists of lawyers and professional actors--both folks trained in how to monologue properly), I completely agree. The only thing worse than a bad monologue is a needlessly self-indulgent one, and those two have an incredible degree of overlap--they are a useful tool, but a dangerous one, and it is important for DMs to be extremely careful with their implementation.
Would like to add, the issue is also not just the quality of the monologue but the protocol of its delivery. The professional actors have the same script and are aware of their cues. Lawyers know the protocols of the court and when they can speak or process to interject.
I bring this up cause this is the major disconnect. DMs need to understand the players' mindset is not on waiting for a monologue but to engage and play a game. So an extremely well written monologue may have a line early in the process that will inspire a player to take action. However, I think most players if they were notified to hold responses so a person at the table has 2 minutes then they would honor that.
I apologize for jumping here and making this point, but I believe it is important. I acknowledge there are people at the table that just interrupt cause they want to speak and there are people who think they have time my conversation or react correctly to comments I made. There is a reason why characters in plays, movies, and TV (is that still a thing) have such smooth and understandable dialogue. Games at the table reflect real life, and if players and DMs want more dramatic moments, then we need to discuss this before sessions. And that is a good thing if it leads to memorable and enjoyable moments.
Perhaps someone can tell us what exactly a monologue can achieve better than other methods of delivery can?
Let's nail this down a bit. I'm not talking about "monologues" that are short enough to be plausibly part of a dialogue, as I've seen some try and shift the goalposts to when previously they'd been advocating for much longer ones. Actual uninterrrupted monologues. The ones where you know you're intended to just shut up and listen to and not interact with. What do they do that's better what the following options can do, if they can be implemented? Why would I, as a DM and with the circumstances favouring me, choose to use an uninterrupted monologue over:
Showing the party via demonstration? If my BBEG is meant to be cruel, why not show it via tortured people, stealing candy off of babies, whatever?
Dialogue?
Investigation?
Clues?
Party research?
Rumour mills?
Any of the other dozens of tools in the DM's arsenal for communicating information to players?
What does a monologue do that would make me opt to use it over the other tools that isn't to demonstrate the character's propensity to monologue (which is really just cover for the second motive) or to massage the DM's ego?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Honestly, monologues are probably best suited for "I, the DM, spent ages on something which none of you have picked up on, so will now drop that into this exposition via a monologue."
I prefer organic conversation. The BBEG may have some things they want to say, but I will be expecting my players to respond!
Otherwise, reasonable people can accept that there are practical limits to monologues on either position at the table in a ttrpg. A monologue is a device used in performance spaces and media where the other side of the table is presumably a passive audience. In such monologue the character gets a chance to be known etc. The necessity of such a device, I'd argue, is if the campaign or story arc is well designed the contrivance of a monologue is unnecessary, if the party has arrived upon the BBEG, they should know darn well why the boss battle is about to happen, with sure some leeway to pull out some twists or ironies that should require the monologue. As a device the monologue in modern storytelling is a much derided trope. The players are at the table to play the game with the DM, not grant the DM a standing ovation.
As a fan of the James Bond franchise, especially the Connery set, I gotta say I do enjoy a proper villain monologue up to a point. It’s only a problem when it runs too long.
Honestly, monologues are probably best suited for "I, the DM, spent ages on something which none of you have picked up on, so will now drop that into this exposition via a monologue."
I prefer organic conversation. The BBEG may have some things they want to say, but I will be expecting my players to respond!
Agreed. It's a solution to the problem of wanting the players to have certain information and the other methods not working, rather than the primary tool in and of itself.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Perhaps someone can tell us what exactly a monologue can achieve better than other methods of delivery can?
There are a few times a BBEG’s monologue is going to be more effective than other tools - most notably situations where a monologue would be the expected course of action, when the BBEG is trying to subvert the party’s understanding about their persona and goals, or when the party invites a monologue.
The former covers situations like when the BBEG is visiting as a foreign dignitary and talking to a lord in a manner where you can’t exactly just attack, or giving a rousing speech to their men, or having a private confession with their god that the party overhears as they sneak up, or them being put on trial and revealing in their argument their arrest was all part of the plan, or any other similar situation where the bad guy can reasonably expect they have a minute or two in which they are reasonably safe and can advance their plot further with words than with action.
The second option is often going to come up when trying to humanise the BBEG. A great BBEG has a raison d’être that seems almost sensible, perhaps even sensible enough to tempt some of the party members. When face to face (or at least somewhere the party can hear the BBEG), there is a unique opportunity for the BBEG to explain the “why” behind their plans in their own words. When done with a basic level of competence, the humanising monologue can provide a perspective on an otherwise unlikable character’s internal thought process, in a way no other literary tool can. It gives them a chance to control the narrative for the next 60-120 seconds, providing them their opening play for what could become an actual dialogue. This too can be difficult to judge the appropriateness of and can be hard to pull off if one is not intimately familiar with the internal workings of the BBEG’s mind. It also is the most likely situation for the party to get fed up and attack, particularly if the DM monologue comes off as saccharine instead of sincere.
The last option is when the players invite the monologue, such as by asking the BBEG to explain themselves. This is the easiest situation to judge whether a monologue is appropriate, but also the situation where a DM needs to be able to ad lib a coherent speech.
All told, there are plenty of situations where a monologue is appropriate and the best tool in the DM’s arsenal to convey information. That said, many DMs over-rely on monologues when other tools might be better. Monologues are the easiest ways to convey information since you just spoon feed it to players, and there are plenty of DMs who use them not for a valid storytelling purpose, but to shortcut things which are harder for them.
Honestly, monologues are probably best suited for "I, the DM, spent ages on something which none of you have picked up on, so will now drop that into this exposition via a monologue."
I prefer organic conversation. The BBEG may have some things they want to say, but I will be expecting my players to respond!
This is what I’d been trying to say unthread. There can be times where a monologue can make sense, cearwyn gave some really good examples of ways they can be done properly, but generally, they’re just kind of weak.
Most of the reason a DM would incorporate one is because that’s what they’ve seen in other media, usually movies or tv, imo. It’s a learned behavior. And when we see them in movies, it’s often down to poor storytelling. The writer realized the villain’s actions make no sense without a certain piece of information, but they didn’t give that information over the course of the story, so they insert it as monologue. It’s an effort to fill a plot hole, and the villian is really talking to the audience, not the hero — the hero isn’t looking for a rationale, they just want to stop the BBEG. That’s why monologues are usually delivered when the hero is tied up or otherwise at the mercy of the villian, if the hero could act, she would do so immediately. Instead, the hero is briefly taken out of the equation so the villian can address the audience.
This has morphed from whether it is technically a good thing when the OP was about players should ALLOW it to happen. The point is, the DM does not need the permission of the players to monologue or not. If the players are upset for with a DM taking a minute or two at the end of a campaign for some self-indulgence, the players really should question why they are at that table.
That assumes that the GM only takes a minute or two. If that were all they were doing, there would be a lot fewer player objections.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
This has morphed from whether it is technically a good thing when the OP was about players should ALLOW it to happen. The point is, the DM does not need the permission of the players to monologue or not. If the players are upset for with a DM taking a minute or two at the end of a campaign for some self-indulgence, the players really should question why they are at that table.
That assumes that the GM only takes a minute or two. If that were all they were doing, there would be a lot fewer player objections.
There should be NO player objections.
If I start waxing on in a monologue for more than 5 minutes I hope my players say something.
This has morphed from whether it is technically a good thing when the OP was about players should ALLOW it to happen. The point is, the DM does not need the permission of the players to monologue or not. If the players are upset for with a DM taking a minute or two at the end of a campaign for some self-indulgence, the players really should question why they are at that table.
That assumes that the GM only takes a minute or two. If that were all they were doing, there would be a lot fewer player objections.
There should be NO player objections.
The DM does lots more work, yes, and that can buy them some leeway, but they’re not the god-king of the table. Players are allowed to think the DM is doing a bad job, and express their opinions. A DM can have main character syndrome, too.
If *I* monologue for more than about a minute, my players are already going to be revolting.
Of course, that's usually the point of my monologue, but you know what I mean.
Monologues are not for when there is a chance of a fight. Flat out. They are for when the Villain has the upper hand and feels safe and secure, able to bring peace and prosperity to their new empire.
I mean, yes, films and TV shows and even some older, novels feature villains whose overall mode of thought seems to be basically "I am great, but that bag of rocks can out think me", and sure, those villains might monologue just as the big fight is about to begin.
And to be blunt, if that is where they are, then they should get a bolt to the head and the whole thing is done. I mean, the greatest monologue of all time still sits as Auric Goldfinger walked by a trapped James Bond lashed to a table and staring at a laser. That "flip the script" wasn't new 59 yeas ago in 1964, and it surely isn't new now.
A monologue comes when the players are busy escaping, or when the payers first meet the bad guy and don't know yet that this is the source of all their pain, the puppeteer whose strings have already been woven around them. A monologue only comes when a Villain is not at risk, and this isn't being mentioned here and should be -- though i tried to suggest that previously.
This isn't saying anything about how anyone does their adventures or anything, I am talking about thinking about how you do it. A good monologue serves not to push forward the story, but to make the villain feel good. The story is not built by it, that should have already happened during the lead up, and if you are monologuing at the climax, then you did your BBEg an injustice.
Ok, yeah, perhaps my approach is't for everyone, but the way I see it is that the BBEG's are *my* characters. And if I was on the other side, would I let a bad guy get the drop on me and then spend some time spouting about how great I am?
Well, okay, yeah, it me, so probably, but not without making sure I was *safe* first. And if it was in my character to not take precautions to be sae, I would anat to now why I was that way, and would have to research that. Do I genuinely think that as the BBEG I am never going to be hurt? Well, then, the greatest justice and punishment would be to kill me with something simple and ordinary.
A great BBEG -- no matter what level in the command structure they might be -- earned their position, clawed and fought and climbed to their position; there is something that enables that, be it money, be it skill, be it the sheer incompetence of others around them or the ease with which they are being used by others to fulfill their own ends. They live in a world of magic and power and people who do incredibly things -- they will know this is going to happen.
Hence why I said that my monologues happen while they are trapped. It isn't hard to trap a party. you just have to start throwing bait at them, study the, know what they want, how they think, how they will react, and set a trap. They will walk right into it. the helpless child, the forlorn lover, the banker who has the codes to all their wealth. They will all fall for it.
As a DM, you you have to both set the scene and a wise one will always give them a way out of the trap. they just have to solve the problem. To give them time to solve the problem, that is when you monologue. After all, as the bad guy, you have them strapped, helpless, unable to overcome you. They cease to matter in the moment, and that's when you do the rambling and the muttering and all that.
If you do have to do it as a final confrontation, like, say, at the seat of their power, then remember that the BBEG is now a monster in its lair. It has all the benefits of a lair. The king sits on his throne with a hundred archers all at the ready, a powerful warrior as his guard(s).
The wizard in her workshop has the full brunt of all her powers and preparations. The Druid in their grove is the embodiment of the soil and plants and animals around them. Again, if they monologue, they feel safe.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
This has morphed from whether it is technically a good thing when the OP was about players should ALLOW it to happen. The point is, the DM does not need the permission of the players to monologue or not. If the players are upset for with a DM taking a minute or two at the end of a campaign for some self-indulgence, the players really should question why they are at that table.
That assumes that the GM only takes a minute or two. If that were all they were doing, there would be a lot fewer player objections.
There should be NO player objections.
If I start waxing on in a monologue for more than 5 minutes I hope my players say something.
These hypothetical monologues are unicorns. I once had a DM talk for 5 minutes without interruption about the history and lore on an area and the BBEG, but as the DM. No one speaks in char for 5 minutes straight. And even if the DM did, so what? Let them. They do 99% of the prep work in a campaign. They deserve a a great deal of latitude and respect.
It is the mindset presented by many in this thread that contribute to the dearth of DM's compared to players.
"Gee, I don't understand why our DM quit when we told him how to run the NPC's. He should be happy with our valuable input. "
As soon as a DM starts reading off a page my mind starts to glaze over. I can only take it for so long. And I’m also a DM, so I can say that.
This has morphed from whether it is technically a good thing when the OP was about players should ALLOW it to happen. The point is, the DM does not need the permission of the players to monologue or not. If the players are upset for with a DM taking a minute or two at the end of a campaign for some self-indulgence, the players really should question why they are at that table.
That assumes that the GM only takes a minute or two. If that were all they were doing, there would be a lot fewer player objections.
There should be NO player objections.
If I start waxing on in a monologue for more than 5 minutes I hope my players say something.
These hypothetical monologues are unicorns. I once had a DM talk for 5 minutes without interruption about the history and lore on an area and the BBEG, but as the DM. No one speaks in char for 5 minutes straight. And even if the DM did, so what? Let them. They do 99% of the prep work in a campaign. They deserve a a great deal of latitude and respect.
It is the mindset presented by many in this thread that contribute to the dearth of DM's compared to players.
"Gee, I don't understand why our DM quit when we told him how to run the NPC's. He should be happy with our valuable input. "
As soon as a DM starts reading off a page my mind starts to glaze over. I can only take it for so long. And I’m also a DM, so I can say that.
Same. I'm not playing D&D because I've got so much free time that I don't know what to do with all of it and am deliberately wasting it. I get that the GM is spending their time prepping and running the game, but I want them to respect that I'm spending my time playing in it. I've played with GMs who could do a good monologue, and there was one thing they all did: remember to keep it short and not act like they're stumping for political office. It is not a sign of a well-run game if the players are all sitting around not actually doing anything for long stretches.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I think what we may be missing here is a general definition of a monologue. So, maybe the question isn't should they be allowed to, it's more like, how long should they be allowed to.
Technically, 4-5 sentences can be a monologue, but I don't think anyone would begrudge that. It's when it starts getting too long that it becomes a problem. And there's not really going to be a hard definition for how long is too long. For example, Stellan Skarsgard's monologue in Andor. I was in rapt attention the whole time, and I could have probably listened to him go on even longer. But in the hands of a lesser actor, it really would have fallen apart. A lot of it comes down to the DM having a clear-eyed estimation of how well they can hold the group's attention.
Players, if you keep attacking the enemies before they can have their say, stop getting sulky when the GM interrupts your 10-minute death speech with "Just roll the death save already."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Beyond the people mischaracterizing the posts of others--yourself included--no one is actually saying that all monologues are bad.
If you apply basic critical reading, you'll notice that folks cage their posts with things like "generally" or "can be annoying" or "there might be better ways to accomplish the same goal"--all ways which leave open the possibility of monologuing being effective while acknowledging that they have problems. No one is saying that monologues are bad as a matter of course--just that they are tools which are often both overused and unprofessionally used and that can cause problems.
From the perspective of someone who generally likes a bit of monologuing both as DM and from my players (admittedly, my group regularly consists of lawyers and professional actors--both folks trained in how to monologue properly), I completely agree. The only thing worse than a bad monologue is a needlessly self-indulgent one, and those two have an incredible degree of overlap--they are a useful tool, but a dangerous one, and it is important for DMs to be extremely careful with their implementation.
Some are self-indulgent pap. As are most long-winded character backstories by wannabe fantasy authors.
Do you not see how silly it is for people to be arguing if what you say is true and people are only saying only bad monologues are bad with which no one would disagree?
The original post said players should let the DM speak. It didn't have to degenerate into a pitched battle over what amounts to a good and a not-so-good monologue as if that's at all relevant to the point it is rude and disruptive to cut short a monologue that for we all we know might be worthy of a Laurence Olivier Award.
Some in this thread have argued that a monologue is not needed if a DM has "done his or her job" and already given players whatever a monologue might reveal anyway. (Are you seriously suggesting it's only "alternate troll accounts" arguing that? That's going to be news to them! I hope you can appreciate the irony of your suggesting I'm the one not paying attention.)
It's amazing how there's no one right way to play D&D except when people don't play it like some expect them to. Or maybe it's just that some just want to disagree because they'd rather argue.
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
As a DM, I never write monologues in advance. I know what my characters know and should say. I can improvise on the go with that information alone. It also allows for player interaction, but in that case it becomes a dialogue. I have an example of a BBEG speech I want to share that kind of subverts the monologue trope.
The players go to the BBEG's lair to stop him from opening a portal to the Abyss. His plan is to unleash a horde of demons in a city ruled under an evil regime. His goal is to put a stop to a tyranny that has oppressed the people for way too long. The demons will certainly put an end to it, but a lot of collateral damage is to be expected. It's basically the Godzilla Treshold trope. Is the nuclear option the only option that remains? When the players meet the BBEG, he starts monologuing (or dialoguing if the players participate). The catch is that he's never going to stop talking until he's interrupted. The whole thing is timed. Once the countdown reaches zero, the portal opens and demons begin to march. The longer it remains open, the more demons will wreak havoc on the city. The players may also choose to side with the BBEG and let the demons do their work.
Age: 33 | Sex: Male | Languages: French and English | Roles: DM and Player
Absolutely. I agree. My comments above apply to players to as well. A player is not always correct when they speak. A player is equally selfish if they speak because they feel it is their right to. It is the player's responsibility to listen and react, only, when the situation justifies their response. Otherwise respect the other person speaking until they finish.
Absolutely.
I'm sure we've all seen tables that had to suffer a player who thought he or she was the protagonist. And I'm not just talking about the character he or she had.
In a world where players vastly outnumber DMs I'd wager money there are more players whose behavior is rude and disruptive—and that is really want the original post is about—than there are DMs delivering over-wrought monologues with little to no purpose.
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
Would like to add, the issue is also not just the quality of the monologue but the protocol of its delivery. The professional actors have the same script and are aware of their cues. Lawyers know the protocols of the court and when they can speak or process to interject.
I bring this up cause this is the major disconnect. DMs need to understand the players' mindset is not on waiting for a monologue but to engage and play a game. So an extremely well written monologue may have a line early in the process that will inspire a player to take action. However, I think most players if they were notified to hold responses so a person at the table has 2 minutes then they would honor that.
I apologize for jumping here and making this point, but I believe it is important. I acknowledge there are people at the table that just interrupt cause they want to speak and there are people who think they have time my conversation or react correctly to comments I made. There is a reason why characters in plays, movies, and TV (is that still a thing) have such smooth and understandable dialogue. Games at the table reflect real life, and if players and DMs want more dramatic moments, then we need to discuss this before sessions. And that is a good thing if it leads to memorable and enjoyable moments.
Perhaps someone can tell us what exactly a monologue can achieve better than other methods of delivery can?
Let's nail this down a bit. I'm not talking about "monologues" that are short enough to be plausibly part of a dialogue, as I've seen some try and shift the goalposts to when previously they'd been advocating for much longer ones. Actual uninterrrupted monologues. The ones where you know you're intended to just shut up and listen to and not interact with. What do they do that's better what the following options can do, if they can be implemented? Why would I, as a DM and with the circumstances favouring me, choose to use an uninterrupted monologue over:
What does a monologue do that would make me opt to use it over the other tools that isn't to demonstrate the character's propensity to monologue (which is really just cover for the second motive) or to massage the DM's ego?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Honestly, monologues are probably best suited for "I, the DM, spent ages on something which none of you have picked up on, so will now drop that into this exposition via a monologue."
I prefer organic conversation. The BBEG may have some things they want to say, but I will be expecting my players to respond!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
As a fan of the James Bond franchise, especially the Connery set, I gotta say I do enjoy a proper villain monologue up to a point. It’s only a problem when it runs too long.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Agreed. It's a solution to the problem of wanting the players to have certain information and the other methods not working, rather than the primary tool in and of itself.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
There are a few times a BBEG’s monologue is going to be more effective than other tools - most notably situations where a monologue would be the expected course of action, when the BBEG is trying to subvert the party’s understanding about their persona and goals, or when the party invites a monologue.
The former covers situations like when the BBEG is visiting as a foreign dignitary and talking to a lord in a manner where you can’t exactly just attack, or giving a rousing speech to their men, or having a private confession with their god that the party overhears as they sneak up, or them being put on trial and revealing in their argument their arrest was all part of the plan, or any other similar situation where the bad guy can reasonably expect they have a minute or two in which they are reasonably safe and can advance their plot further with words than with action.
The second option is often going to come up when trying to humanise the BBEG. A great BBEG has a raison d’être that seems almost sensible, perhaps even sensible enough to tempt some of the party members. When face to face (or at least somewhere the party can hear the BBEG), there is a unique opportunity for the BBEG to explain the “why” behind their plans in their own words. When done with a basic level of competence, the humanising monologue can provide a perspective on an otherwise unlikable character’s internal thought process, in a way no other literary tool can. It gives them a chance to control the narrative for the next 60-120 seconds, providing them their opening play for what could become an actual dialogue. This too can be difficult to judge the appropriateness of and can be hard to pull off if one is not intimately familiar with the internal workings of the BBEG’s mind. It also is the most likely situation for the party to get fed up and attack, particularly if the DM monologue comes off as saccharine instead of sincere.
The last option is when the players invite the monologue, such as by asking the BBEG to explain themselves. This is the easiest situation to judge whether a monologue is appropriate, but also the situation where a DM needs to be able to ad lib a coherent speech.
All told, there are plenty of situations where a monologue is appropriate and the best tool in the DM’s arsenal to convey information. That said, many DMs over-rely on monologues when other tools might be better. Monologues are the easiest ways to convey information since you just spoon feed it to players, and there are plenty of DMs who use them not for a valid storytelling purpose, but to shortcut things which are harder for them.
This is what I’d been trying to say unthread. There can be times where a monologue can make sense, cearwyn gave some really good examples of ways they can be done properly, but generally, they’re just kind of weak.
Most of the reason a DM would incorporate one is because that’s what they’ve seen in other media, usually movies or tv, imo. It’s a learned behavior. And when we see them in movies, it’s often down to poor storytelling. The writer realized the villain’s actions make no sense without a certain piece of information, but they didn’t give that information over the course of the story, so they insert it as monologue. It’s an effort to fill a plot hole, and the villian is really talking to the audience, not the hero — the hero isn’t looking for a rationale, they just want to stop the BBEG. That’s why monologues are usually delivered when the hero is tied up or otherwise at the mercy of the villian, if the hero could act, she would do so immediately. Instead, the hero is briefly taken out of the equation so the villian can address the audience.
That assumes that the GM only takes a minute or two. If that were all they were doing, there would be a lot fewer player objections.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
If I start waxing on in a monologue for more than 5 minutes I hope my players say something.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The DM does lots more work, yes, and that can buy them some leeway, but they’re not the god-king of the table. Players are allowed to think the DM is doing a bad job, and express their opinions.
A DM can have main character syndrome, too.
If *I* monologue for more than about a minute, my players are already going to be revolting.
Of course, that's usually the point of my monologue, but you know what I mean.
Monologues are not for when there is a chance of a fight. Flat out. They are for when the Villain has the upper hand and feels safe and secure, able to bring peace and prosperity to their new empire.
I mean, yes, films and TV shows and even some older, novels feature villains whose overall mode of thought seems to be basically "I am great, but that bag of rocks can out think me", and sure, those villains might monologue just as the big fight is about to begin.
And to be blunt, if that is where they are, then they should get a bolt to the head and the whole thing is done. I mean, the greatest monologue of all time still sits as Auric Goldfinger walked by a trapped James Bond lashed to a table and staring at a laser. That "flip the script" wasn't new 59 yeas ago in 1964, and it surely isn't new now.
A monologue comes when the players are busy escaping, or when the payers first meet the bad guy and don't know yet that this is the source of all their pain, the puppeteer whose strings have already been woven around them. A monologue only comes when a Villain is not at risk, and this isn't being mentioned here and should be -- though i tried to suggest that previously.
This isn't saying anything about how anyone does their adventures or anything, I am talking about thinking about how you do it. A good monologue serves not to push forward the story, but to make the villain feel good. The story is not built by it, that should have already happened during the lead up, and if you are monologuing at the climax, then you did your BBEg an injustice.
Ok, yeah, perhaps my approach is't for everyone, but the way I see it is that the BBEG's are *my* characters. And if I was on the other side, would I let a bad guy get the drop on me and then spend some time spouting about how great I am?
Well, okay, yeah, it me, so probably, but not without making sure I was *safe* first. And if it was in my character to not take precautions to be sae, I would anat to now why I was that way, and would have to research that. Do I genuinely think that as the BBEG I am never going to be hurt? Well, then, the greatest justice and punishment would be to kill me with something simple and ordinary.
A great BBEG -- no matter what level in the command structure they might be -- earned their position, clawed and fought and climbed to their position; there is something that enables that, be it money, be it skill, be it the sheer incompetence of others around them or the ease with which they are being used by others to fulfill their own ends. They live in a world of magic and power and people who do incredibly things -- they will know this is going to happen.
Hence why I said that my monologues happen while they are trapped. It isn't hard to trap a party. you just have to start throwing bait at them, study the, know what they want, how they think, how they will react, and set a trap. They will walk right into it. the helpless child, the forlorn lover, the banker who has the codes to all their wealth. They will all fall for it.
As a DM, you you have to both set the scene and a wise one will always give them a way out of the trap. they just have to solve the problem. To give them time to solve the problem, that is when you monologue. After all, as the bad guy, you have them strapped, helpless, unable to overcome you. They cease to matter in the moment, and that's when you do the rambling and the muttering and all that.
If you do have to do it as a final confrontation, like, say, at the seat of their power, then remember that the BBEG is now a monster in its lair. It has all the benefits of a lair. The king sits on his throne with a hundred archers all at the ready, a powerful warrior as his guard(s).
The wizard in her workshop has the full brunt of all her powers and preparations. The Druid in their grove is the embodiment of the soil and plants and animals around them. Again, if they monologue, they feel safe.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
As soon as a DM starts reading off a page my mind starts to glaze over. I can only take it for so long. And I’m also a DM, so I can say that.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Same. I'm not playing D&D because I've got so much free time that I don't know what to do with all of it and am deliberately wasting it. I get that the GM is spending their time prepping and running the game, but I want them to respect that I'm spending my time playing in it. I've played with GMs who could do a good monologue, and there was one thing they all did: remember to keep it short and not act like they're stumping for political office. It is not a sign of a well-run game if the players are all sitting around not actually doing anything for long stretches.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I think what we may be missing here is a general definition of a monologue. So, maybe the question isn't should they be allowed to, it's more like, how long should they be allowed to.
Technically, 4-5 sentences can be a monologue, but I don't think anyone would begrudge that. It's when it starts getting too long that it becomes a problem. And there's not really going to be a hard definition for how long is too long. For example, Stellan Skarsgard's monologue in Andor. I was in rapt attention the whole time, and I could have probably listened to him go on even longer. But in the hands of a lesser actor, it really would have fallen apart. A lot of it comes down to the DM having a clear-eyed estimation of how well they can hold the group's attention.
And to extend it a bit further:
Players, if you keep attacking the enemies before they can have their say, stop getting sulky when the GM interrupts your 10-minute death speech with "Just roll the death save already."