As a DM I mostly lean towards OP... typically monologues tend to reveal things about the setting and the story going forward. What I don't see commented on is what I would call the 3rd and best option for players to do during a monologue. The 1st being stand there and listen, the 2nd being trying to absolutely derail it. The 3rd, and best option is to interact with it. A lot of scenes which would be "stand there for 5 minutes while I talk" became a dialogue of twists and turns between the party and the villain as the party tried to prove their ideology wrong. It's far more natural and still reveals the villain's motivations/foreshadowing while giving the players something to do other than "stand there and be terrified!1!"
As for the 2nd option of just trying to derail the monologue, it typically ends horrifically for that player character, and results in (justifiably in my eyes) the DM doubling down on the expected scene tone to move away from whatever typically pretty bad joke was just made, often to the expense of said player character.
As a DM I mostly lean towards OP... typically monologues tend to reveal things about the setting and the story going forward. What I don't see commented on is what I would call the 3rd and best option for players to do during a monologue. The 1st being stand there and listen, the 2nd being trying to absolutely derail it. The 3rd, and best option is to interact with it. A lot of scenes which would be "stand there for 5 minutes while I talk" became a dialogue of twists and turns between the party and the villain as the party tried to prove their ideology wrong. It's far more natural and still reveals the villain's motivations/foreshadowing while giving the players something to do other than "stand there and be terrified!1!"
As for the 2nd option of just trying to derail the monologue, it typically ends horrifically for that player character, and results in (justifiably in my eyes) the DM doubling down on the expected scene tone to move away from whatever typically pretty bad joke was just made, often to the expense of said player character.
By definition a monologue is not a dialogue or a conversation. Of course an interactive role play has tremendous instrumentality to any game where information must be divulged. But this thread is about monologue's who's definition is pretty clear if you know the word's routes.
A monologue has special place in the world of rhetoric and performance, and within TTRPG but many other places, its modern utilization is just clumsy and reeks of failure, outside of maybe Scooby Doo derived story lines, but I'll talk about it in investigative games in another post.
If the game played to that moment was done well, a encounter with the BBEG or "the source" or whatever should flow organically and not require a special spotlight moment for the DM's proxy to explain all the genius the party failed to fathom. If that's happening, that's actually not an indictment of the players ability to figure things out, that's an admission of failure of design and an abdication from any sort of immersion that may be remaining.
By definition a monologue is not a dialogue or a conversation. Of course an interactive role play has tremendous instrumentality to any game where information must be divulged. But this thread is about monologue's who's definition is pretty clear if you know the word's routes.
A monologue has special place in the world of rhetoric and performance, and within TTRPG but many other places, its modern utilization is just clumsy and reeks of failure, outside of maybe Scooby Doo derived story lines, but I'll talk about it in investigative games in another post.
If the game played to that moment was done well, a encounter with the BBEG or "the source" or whatever should flow organically and not require a special spotlight moment for the DM's proxy to explain all the genius the party failed to fathom. If that's happening, that's actually not an indictment of the players ability to figure things out, that's an admission of failure of design and an abdication from any sort of immersion that may be remaining.
The monologue makes regular appearances in great literature. And be it delivered by a player or delivered by the DM a monologue can be and often is one of the most memorable of moments in a game.
To this day I am still recounting the speech a player in a game I ran years ago had his character deliver as everyone else listened upon his defeat of formidable opponents in a moment everyone thought was going to be curtains for all of the characters.
What he said is remembered more so than what he did because what he said was role-playing at its finest. What he didwas rash and brave and it worked but it was ultimately achieved through the roll of the dice.
Similarly a DM can have an NPC deliver an extended monologue that appeals to the characters' (and players') curiosity, or their sympathy, or just their sense of humor.
Just how little do NPCs get to say in a game if every time they open their mouths you can't wait for them to shut up? How fine is the line between a rude character and a rude player when a DM can't even bring his or her world to life by breathing life into others in it without such disruptive behavior?
The charm of D&D is that with it we can tell different stories. Maybe you want to tell stories in which the only speaking is back and forth banter for laughs. Maybe ones in which all that is said is really only that which is said right before a player is asked to make a Persuasion check or a Deception check. But telling others monologues don't belong at the table is just bad form.
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.
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.
Speaking as a forever DM...
I wonder if anyone with this attitude has looked into the trope in Fanfiction and amateur novels of "infodumps" and how they're regarded. Maybe the author did put tons of effort into the book, I'm sure they did, that doesn't make it any less of a bad idea to do it and how they are generally end up dragging the book down.
If you're doing a decent job as a DM, read your party right and they've been playing ball, you'll have had plenty of opportunity to shine throughout the campaign - and there'll be little new stuff to cover anyway. Take my example in post #14; I'd have revealed what they needed to know fairly early on if they'd have done some investigation and shown some more initiative. Everything they needed to frame the final fight would have come from player agency and they'd have earned it. You also get a much bigger buzz for having constructed a world that gave them the information organically than taking advantage of a captive audience.
Rather than finding your fulfilment in cheap voice acting, find your fulfilment in creating a rich, vibrant world that yields great stories and interactions. It's like the difference between chatting with ChatGPT and having a deep conversation with a loved one.
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.
I wonder if anyone with this attitude has looked into the trope in Fanfiction and amateur novels of "infodumps" and how they're regarded. Maybe the author did put tons of effort into the book, I'm sure they did, that doesn't make it any less of a bad idea to do it and how they are generally end up dragging the book down.
If you're doing a decent job as a DM, read your party right and they've been playing ball, you'll have had plenty of opportunity to shine throughout the campaign - and there'll be little new stuff to cover anyway. Take my example in post #14; I'd have revealed what they needed to know fairly early on if they'd have done some investigation and shown some more initiative. Everything they needed to frame the final fight would have come from player agency and they'd have earned it. You also get a much bigger buzz for having constructed a world that gave them the information organically than taking advantage of a captive audience.
Rather than finding your fulfilment in cheap voice acting, find your fulfilment in creating a rich, vibrant world that yields great stories and interactions. It's like the difference between chatting with ChatGPT and having a deep conversation with a loved one.
To be fair the same can be said for players who put a lot of time and effort into backstories that end up reading like godawful fan fiction.
I do agree with you though that what makes a good game a great game is a world that is pulsing with life as its backdrop. Not trying to be Matthew Mercer. But sometimes key to worldbuilding is allowing an NPC or two to speak for more than 30 seconds.
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.
I'm half-minded. I see both sides and it's very dependant.
A well done monologue for 10-15 mins? Sure. Monologue away.
A 30-40 minute waffle-on adding little and boring as all hell? "I cast silence" / "I stab" / "FIREBALL!"
The monologue needs to actually add something, it must be relevant, and it must be engaging. It's a game - interactive by nature. It's not a theatre show. I'm not there to sit and do nothing. The Monologue serves a purpose when done right, but is just a detriment done poorly. I don't expect something miraculous, written by experts or acted by true thespians. But - if you're going to have me sit and do nothing while my character - who is obviously there for a specific purpose they're going to just want to get on with - stands around to listen to the enemy... then there must be a reason and it must be entertaining. I'm not impatient, take your time within reason, but don't take all day adding nothing to the experience.
I also take the same stance with infodumps and descriptions. I absolutely want to learn about the world and I definitely like the descriptions to help paint the image in my head. But, don't spend 20 minutes describing a few trees we've walked past, or - as actually happened in one game - spend an hour infodumping about historical events that had absolutely zero relevance to our current mission or characters in any way, all because we asked a shopkeeper for a ******* map. These things need to be done where it serves to engage. Overdo do it and you achieve the opposite.
Like, sure I can appreciate that this day the weather has shifted. There's been rain. You don't need to describe that for 25 mins. It's gone dreary, thanks, I get it already, can I just go buy my goddamn health potion, please so my squishy-as-fluff wizarding ass doesn't die later? Thanks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
We have all heard of the stories of a DM monologuing as the BBEG as the rogue player tells the DM mid monologue "I'd like to stab him!" And to some people they may find this hilarious and get a kick out of it. But I can tell you that a lot of DMs would get frustrated at the interruption https://1921681254.mx/.
As many players like to RP their characters in game actions, some DMs like to do that as well with their NPCs. Many DMs may even write a speech before the session to really try and wow the players in the moment. An epic build up to a fight with a dramatic monologue or dialogue with the players cut short by interruptions... DMs deserve to have fun too. So pleasehttps://100001****/, let your DM finish their monologue, or at the very least if you are going to attack, have a cool line to say before attacking.
A well done monologue for 10-15 mins? Sure. Monologue away.
A ten to fifteen minute monologue would very likely be considered oppressive by players. To put that in perspective:
-The current world record for the longest monologue in a Hollywood film comes in at fourteen minutes—and that record was set in 1931, so I doubt anyone is itching to break it.
- Most Shakespeare monologues are less than two minutes in length, a time he carefully chose to ensure his audience would never grow bored.
- The opening speech to the film Patton is often considered one of the best long monologues in film - it comes in at a little over six minutes. It should also be noted, Patton’s monologue comes at the very beginning of the film - it is an introduction and does not halt the action. What worked as an entry point almost certainly would have failed if it had been placed at any other point in the movie.
If you want to talk for 10-15 minutes, it needs to be a dialogue, not a monologue. You need back and forth with your players to keep them engaged and keep them from feeling like they are still actually playing a game.
Generally speaking, I think the Shakespeare one is a good rule to follow if one feels they need a rule—if you want to monologue, keep it to under two minutes. Any longer than that and you need other characters interacting.
Love has blossomed between one of the player's characters and an NPC. The player's character informs this paramour of his he has no choice but to leave for a time as he is sworn to fulfill some promise. The DM enters a monologue to give voice to the NPC's feelings about all this but is cut short because the player and in turn his character lack patience and civility and restraint.
Can't imagine tales of romance as well as of adventure are being woven at ya tables.
I'm sure there are feminist critiques of how often female NPCs in games are reduced to voiceless manqués and little more than window-dressing for male PCs.
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.
I agree with those saying a monologue is generally poor storytelling. By the time the characters are standing in front of the BBEG, they should already know all that information. And really at that point, everyone knows it’s going to come to blows. Only a fool wouldn’t take their chance to get it the first hit.
And that doesn’t compare to an overlong backstory. (I’m against a long complicated backstory, don’t get me wrong.) A reader can choose to skim it, skip to the end, put it down. A player can’t listen to a monologue at the table on 1.5x speed.
And on both sides, most people really overestimate their skills as a writer to hold someone’s interest. “No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die,” is about perfect. Unless the BBEG is stalling for time or something. Some reason for it to make sense other than, my players didn’t figure this out and now I want to show off.
Unless it’s the Bojack Horsemen enology episode, now there was a genius monologue. Not a BBEG, but just wow.
Saw a video where a player started a verbal 10-second countdown to let the DM's character explain the presence of bones of young animals all over the ground... verbally counting while the DM was trying to speak. After the party came to an accord with what indeed turned out to be a monster... after that player launched a preemptive attack and the party managed to talk the monster down, the party mentioned they did feel like it would take more than 10 seconds to explain a bunch of bones... which wasn't as bad as it seemed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I agree with those saying a monologue is generally poor storytelling. By the time the characters are standing in front of the BBEG, they should already know all that information. And really at that point, everyone knows it’s going to come to blows. Only a fool wouldn’t take their chance to get it the first hit.
And that doesn’t compare to an overlong backstory. (I’m against a long complicated backstory, don’t get me wrong.) A reader can choose to skim it, skip to the end, put it down. A player can’t listen to a monologue at the table on 1.5x speed.
And on both sides, most people really overestimate their skills as a writer to hold someone’s interest. “No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die,” is about perfect. Unless the BBEG is stalling for time or something. Some reason for it to make sense other than, my players didn’t figure this out and now I want to show off.
Unless it’s the Bojack Horsemen enology episode, now there was a genius monologue. Not a BBEG, but just wow.
What if it needn't come to blows?
Some big bad evil guys lose not when they get killed but when the players (and characters) use their wits.
If every adventure essentially follows the same trajectory what is even the point of playing more than once?
I don't want to tell the same story with the same predictable ending to every big bad evil guy encounter. That is vastly more boring than my having to listen to what an NPC has to say for a couple of minutes.
The charm of D&D is that it provide us tools with which we can tell an infinite number of stories.
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.
I agree with those saying a monologue is generally poor storytelling. By the time the characters are standing in front of the BBEG, they should already know all that information. And really at that point, everyone knows it’s going to come to blows. Only a fool wouldn’t take their chance to get it the first hit.
And that doesn’t compare to an overlong backstory. (I’m against a long complicated backstory, don’t get me wrong.) A reader can choose to skim it, skip to the end, put it down. A player can’t listen to a monologue at the table on 1.5x speed.
And on both sides, most people really overestimate their skills as a writer to hold someone’s interest. “No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die,” is about perfect. Unless the BBEG is stalling for time or something. Some reason for it to make sense other than, my players didn’t figure this out and now I want to show off.
Unless it’s the Bojack Horsemen enology episode, now there was a genius monologue. Not a BBEG, but just wow.
What if it needn't come to blows?
Some big bad evil guys lose not when they get killed but when the players (and characters) use their wits.
If every adventure essentially follows the same trajectory what is even the point of playing more than once?
I don't want to tell the same story with the same predictable ending to every big bad evil guy encounter. That is vastly more boring than my having to listen to what an NPC has to say for a couple of minutes.
The charm of D&D is that it provide us tools with which we can tell an infinite number of stories.
Then it should be a dialogue, not a monologue. That’s the PCs using their wits and talking their way out of the situation. Listening to someone give a speech isn’t using your wits, it’s sitting there passively. There’s some exceptions, (like my above mentioned stalling for time) but generally a villian monologue isn’t going to be a win condition for the PCs.
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 isn't being selfish, it's just that monologues can be annoying and that they aren't always fun for all groups. The DM deserves to have fun and enjoy things too, and uninterrupted monologues can be fun for some people. That being said, players have a right to get upset when they feel lectured or extremely bored by elements in the game, and they hadn't agreed to or knowingly joined a group where the bad guys spend tons of time ranting.
This is why the Dungeon Master and player should communicate about what elements and types of things they want or are okay with having in game. If monologuing in D&D is something that brings you lots of fun, then find a group that can survive and have fun with that.
Honestly, I said this earlier but I'd like to repeat now that I personally would love it and have a great time if my players interrupted the enemies' speech to do something fun, awesome, or interesting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Saw a video where a player started a verbal 10-second countdown to let the DM's character explain the presence of bones of young animals all over the ground... verbally counting while the DM was trying to speak. After the party came to an accord with what indeed turned out to be a monster... after that player launched a preemptive attack and the party managed to talk the monster down, the party mentioned they did feel like it would take more than 10 seconds to explain a bunch of bones... which wasn't as bad as it seemed.
Any player that tried that stunt would be shown the door in less time than the timer.
Oxventure, Season 5, Episode 3, "Centaur of Attention" (at the end of the episode just after the 1h19m mark). Conversation continued into the next episode with the player being a bit huffy that everyone disagreed with what the player did and further tried to do...
That player's a better GM in my opinion, far better at running a game than being a PC. Too god-modding as a PC—telling the DM and other players what happened without waiting for any dice or responses from others, but remarkably well-governed without being overbearing as a GM...
That player sees D&D as "Yes, and..." style of improvisational acting where nobody says "no" instead of "Yes, and I try to..." with dice and other players countering the attempt. Doesn't seem to like being told "no" by anyone during a game. A few times in the recent seasons, that player's become a little put-out when someone says "no" and has to be reminded to roll for things rather than things just happening because that player said it happens.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Then it should be a dialogue, not a monologue. That’s the PCs using their wits and talking their way out of the situation. Listening to someone give a speech isn’t using your wits, it’s sitting there passively. There’s some exceptions, (like my above mentioned stalling for time) but generally a villian monologue isn’t going to be a win condition for the PCs.
Sometimes your wits are going to fail you if you lack the patience to listen and hear what must be heard.
Imagine players growing impatient with the Keeper in a game of Call of Cthulhu as he or she launches into a monologue delivered by the big bad evil guy as the big bad evil guy inadvertently reveals what must be done to prevent the consequences of the ritual the big bad evil guy has just performed.
What's then about to happen to your characters in that game is going to teach you the importance of patience.
Should no NPC—ally or opponent—get the chance to speak unless it is in a back and forth with a PC? No rallying of troops with prophecies of glory and immortality to raise morale among its forces? No speeches? No toasts? No tributes? No "cutscenes" to provide insight into the goings-on of key NPCs in characters' backstories delivered as monologues?
How flat is a world in which all but four or five individuals are as I said voiceless manqués and little more than window-dressing outside of combat.
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 it should be a dialogue, not a monologue. That’s the PCs using their wits and talking their way out of the situation. Listening to someone give a speech isn’t using your wits, it’s sitting there passively. There’s some exceptions, (like my above mentioned stalling for time) but generally a villian monologue isn’t going to be a win condition for the PCs.
Sometimes your wits are going to fail you if you lack the patience to listen and hear what must be heard.
Imagine players growing impatient with the Keeper in a game of Call of Cthulhu as he or she launches into a monologue delivered by the big bad evil guy as the big bad evil guy inadvertently reveals what must be done to prevent the consequences of the ritual the big bad evil guy has just performed.
What's then about to happen to your characters in that game is going to teach you the importance of patience.
Should no NPC—ally or opponent—get the chance to speak unless it is in a back and forth with a PC? No rallying of troops with prophecies of glory and immortality to raise morale among its forces? No speeches? No toasts? No tributes? No "cutscenes" to provide insight into the goings-on of key NPCs in characters' backstories delivered as monologues?
How flat is a world in which all but four or five individuals are as I said voiceless manqués and little more than window-dressing outside of combat.
There irony of you advocating for "hear[ing] what must be heard" in a post that fails to understand what the person you are responding to said should not be lost on anyone.
I do not think anyone on this thread is saying "all monologues are bad"--instead, there has been a general consensus of "bad monologues are really bad, be careful if you are using one that you do not make the game worse through your lack of skill."
Looking just at the person you are responding to, that very person noted that monologues are "generally poor storytelling"--generally, by definition, leaving open the possibility of there being times when they would constitute good storytelling. They go on to talk about why they think this is "generally" the case--the fact that many players do not have the skill or training to pull off an effective, engaging monologue--again, the implication is that someone who is skilled at a monologues might be better situated at monologuing, but the general trend is going to be players who cannot pull one off. They also note that a lot of monologues are often shoehorned in places where they do not make sense. I think they might sell short the number of situations where a BBEG monologue could work, but that doesn't mean that there are not errors with the sensibilities of monologues.
Then it should be a dialogue, not a monologue. That’s the PCs using their wits and talking their way out of the situation. Listening to someone give a speech isn’t using your wits, it’s sitting there passively. There’s some exceptions, (like my above mentioned stalling for time) but generally a villian monologue isn’t going to be a win condition for the PCs.
Sometimes your wits are going to fail you if you lack the patience to listen and hear what must be heard.
Imagine players growing impatient with the Keeper in a game of Call of Cthulhu as he or she launches into a monologue delivered by the big bad evil guy as the big bad evil guy inadvertently reveals what must be done to prevent the consequences of the ritual the big bad evil guy has just performed.
What's then about to happen to your characters in that game is going to teach you the importance of patience.
Should no NPC—ally or opponent—get the chance to speak unless it is in a back and forth with a PC? No rallying of troops with prophecies of glory and immortality to raise morale among its forces? No speeches? No toasts? No tributes? No "cutscenes" to provide insight into the goings-on of key NPCs in characters' backstories delivered as monologues?
How flat is a world in which all but four or five individuals are as I said voiceless manqués and little more than window-dressing outside of combat.
There irony of you advocating for "hear[ing] what must be heard" in a post that fails to understand what the person you are responding to said should not be lost on anyone.
I do not think anyone on this thread is saying "all monologues are bad"--instead, there has been a general consensus of "bad monologues are really bad, be careful if you are using one that you do not make the game worse through your lack of skill."
Looking just at the person you are responding to, that very noted that monologues are "generally poor storytelling"--generally, by definition, leaving open the possibility of there being times when they would constitute good storytelling. They go on to talk about why they think this is "generally" the case--the fact that many players do not have the skill or training to pull off an effective, engaging monologue--again, the implication is that someone who is skilled at a monologues might be better situated at monologuing, but the general trend is going to be players who cannot pull one off. They also note that a lot of monologues are often shoehorned in places where they do not make sense. I think they might sell short the number of situations where a BBEG monologue could work, but that doesn't mean that there are not errors with the sensibilities of monologues.
"I do not think ..."
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As a DM I mostly lean towards OP... typically monologues tend to reveal things about the setting and the story going forward. What I don't see commented on is what I would call the 3rd and best option for players to do during a monologue. The 1st being stand there and listen, the 2nd being trying to absolutely derail it. The 3rd, and best option is to interact with it. A lot of scenes which would be "stand there for 5 minutes while I talk" became a dialogue of twists and turns between the party and the villain as the party tried to prove their ideology wrong. It's far more natural and still reveals the villain's motivations/foreshadowing while giving the players something to do other than "stand there and be terrified!1!"
As for the 2nd option of just trying to derail the monologue, it typically ends horrifically for that player character, and results in (justifiably in my eyes) the DM doubling down on the expected scene tone to move away from whatever typically pretty bad joke was just made, often to the expense of said player character.
By definition a monologue is not a dialogue or a conversation. Of course an interactive role play has tremendous instrumentality to any game where information must be divulged. But this thread is about monologue's who's definition is pretty clear if you know the word's routes.
A monologue has special place in the world of rhetoric and performance, and within TTRPG but many other places, its modern utilization is just clumsy and reeks of failure, outside of maybe Scooby Doo derived story lines, but I'll talk about it in investigative games in another post.
If the game played to that moment was done well, a encounter with the BBEG or "the source" or whatever should flow organically and not require a special spotlight moment for the DM's proxy to explain all the genius the party failed to fathom. If that's happening, that's actually not an indictment of the players ability to figure things out, that's an admission of failure of design and an abdication from any sort of immersion that may be remaining.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The monologue makes regular appearances in great literature. And be it delivered by a player or delivered by the DM a monologue can be and often is one of the most memorable of moments in a game.
To this day I am still recounting the speech a player in a game I ran years ago had his character deliver as everyone else listened upon his defeat of formidable opponents in a moment everyone thought was going to be curtains for all of the characters.
What he said is remembered more so than what he did because what he said was role-playing at its finest. What he did was rash and brave and it worked but it was ultimately achieved through the roll of the dice.
Similarly a DM can have an NPC deliver an extended monologue that appeals to the characters' (and players') curiosity, or their sympathy, or just their sense of humor.
Just how little do NPCs get to say in a game if every time they open their mouths you can't wait for them to shut up? How fine is the line between a rude character and a rude player when a DM can't even bring his or her world to life by breathing life into others in it without such disruptive behavior?
The charm of D&D is that with it we can tell different stories. Maybe you want to tell stories in which the only speaking is back and forth banter for laughs. Maybe ones in which all that is said is really only that which is said right before a player is asked to make a Persuasion check or a Deception check. But telling others monologues don't belong at the table is just bad form.
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.
Speaking as a forever DM...
I wonder if anyone with this attitude has looked into the trope in Fanfiction and amateur novels of "infodumps" and how they're regarded. Maybe the author did put tons of effort into the book, I'm sure they did, that doesn't make it any less of a bad idea to do it and how they are generally end up dragging the book down.
If you're doing a decent job as a DM, read your party right and they've been playing ball, you'll have had plenty of opportunity to shine throughout the campaign - and there'll be little new stuff to cover anyway. Take my example in post #14; I'd have revealed what they needed to know fairly early on if they'd have done some investigation and shown some more initiative. Everything they needed to frame the final fight would have come from player agency and they'd have earned it. You also get a much bigger buzz for having constructed a world that gave them the information organically than taking advantage of a captive audience.
Rather than finding your fulfilment in cheap voice acting, find your fulfilment in creating a rich, vibrant world that yields great stories and interactions. It's like the difference between chatting with ChatGPT and having a deep conversation with a loved one.
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.
To be fair the same can be said for players who put a lot of time and effort into backstories that end up reading like godawful fan fiction.
I do agree with you though that what makes a good game a great game is a world that is pulsing with life as its backdrop. Not trying to be Matthew Mercer. But sometimes key to worldbuilding is allowing an NPC or two to speak for more than 30 seconds.
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.
I'm half-minded. I see both sides and it's very dependant.
A well done monologue for 10-15 mins? Sure. Monologue away.
A 30-40 minute waffle-on adding little and boring as all hell? "I cast silence" / "I stab" / "FIREBALL!"
The monologue needs to actually add something, it must be relevant, and it must be engaging. It's a game - interactive by nature. It's not a theatre show. I'm not there to sit and do nothing. The Monologue serves a purpose when done right, but is just a detriment done poorly. I don't expect something miraculous, written by experts or acted by true thespians. But - if you're going to have me sit and do nothing while my character - who is obviously there for a specific purpose they're going to just want to get on with - stands around to listen to the enemy... then there must be a reason and it must be entertaining. I'm not impatient, take your time within reason, but don't take all day adding nothing to the experience.
I also take the same stance with infodumps and descriptions. I absolutely want to learn about the world and I definitely like the descriptions to help paint the image in my head. But, don't spend 20 minutes describing a few trees we've walked past, or - as actually happened in one game - spend an hour infodumping about historical events that had absolutely zero relevance to our current mission or characters in any way, all because we asked a shopkeeper for a ******* map. These things need to be done where it serves to engage. Overdo do it and you achieve the opposite.
Like, sure I can appreciate that this day the weather has shifted. There's been rain. You don't need to describe that for 25 mins. It's gone dreary, thanks, I get it already, can I just go buy my goddamn health potion, please so my squishy-as-fluff wizarding ass doesn't die later? Thanks.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
i got this.....
A ten to fifteen minute monologue would very likely be considered oppressive by players. To put that in perspective:
-The current world record for the longest monologue in a Hollywood film comes in at fourteen minutes—and that record was set in 1931, so I doubt anyone is itching to break it.
- Most Shakespeare monologues are less than two minutes in length, a time he carefully chose to ensure his audience would never grow bored.
- The opening speech to the film Patton is often considered one of the best long monologues in film - it comes in at a little over six minutes. It should also be noted, Patton’s monologue comes at the very beginning of the film - it is an introduction and does not halt the action. What worked as an entry point almost certainly would have failed if it had been placed at any other point in the movie.
If you want to talk for 10-15 minutes, it needs to be a dialogue, not a monologue. You need back and forth with your players to keep them engaged and keep them from feeling like they are still actually playing a game.
Generally speaking, I think the Shakespeare one is a good rule to follow if one feels they need a rule—if you want to monologue, keep it to under two minutes. Any longer than that and you need other characters interacting.
Love has blossomed between one of the player's characters and an NPC. The player's character informs this paramour of his he has no choice but to leave for a time as he is sworn to fulfill some promise. The DM enters a monologue to give voice to the NPC's feelings about all this but is cut short because the player and in turn his character lack patience and civility and restraint.
Can't imagine tales of romance as well as of adventure are being woven at ya tables.
I'm sure there are feminist critiques of how often female NPCs in games are reduced to voiceless manqués and little more than window-dressing for male PCs.
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.
I agree with those saying a monologue is generally poor storytelling. By the time the characters are standing in front of the BBEG, they should already know all that information. And really at that point, everyone knows it’s going to come to blows. Only a fool wouldn’t take their chance to get it the first hit.
And that doesn’t compare to an overlong backstory. (I’m against a long complicated backstory, don’t get me wrong.) A reader can choose to skim it, skip to the end, put it down. A player can’t listen to a monologue at the table on 1.5x speed.
And on both sides, most people really overestimate their skills as a writer to hold someone’s interest. “No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die,” is about perfect. Unless the BBEG is stalling for time or something. Some reason for it to make sense other than, my players didn’t figure this out and now I want to show off.
Unless it’s the Bojack Horsemen enology episode, now there was a genius monologue. Not a BBEG, but just wow.
Saw a video where a player started a verbal 10-second countdown to let the DM's character explain the presence of bones of young animals all over the ground... verbally counting while the DM was trying to speak. After the party came to an accord with what indeed turned out to be a monster... after that player launched a preemptive attack and the party managed to talk the monster down, the party mentioned they did feel like it would take more than 10 seconds to explain a bunch of bones... which wasn't as bad as it seemed.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
What if it needn't come to blows?
Some big bad evil guys lose not when they get killed but when the players (and characters) use their wits.
If every adventure essentially follows the same trajectory what is even the point of playing more than once?
I don't want to tell the same story with the same predictable ending to every big bad evil guy encounter. That is vastly more boring than my having to listen to what an NPC has to say for a couple of minutes.
The charm of D&D is that it provide us tools with which we can tell an infinite number of stories.
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.
Then it should be a dialogue, not a monologue. That’s the PCs using their wits and talking their way out of the situation. Listening to someone give a speech isn’t using your wits, it’s sitting there passively. There’s some exceptions, (like my above mentioned stalling for time) but generally a villian monologue isn’t going to be a win condition for the PCs.
It isn't being selfish, it's just that monologues can be annoying and that they aren't always fun for all groups. The DM deserves to have fun and enjoy things too, and uninterrupted monologues can be fun for some people. That being said, players have a right to get upset when they feel lectured or extremely bored by elements in the game, and they hadn't agreed to or knowingly joined a group where the bad guys spend tons of time ranting.
This is why the Dungeon Master and player should communicate about what elements and types of things they want or are okay with having in game. If monologuing in D&D is something that brings you lots of fun, then find a group that can survive and have fun with that.
Honestly, I said this earlier but I'd like to repeat now that I personally would love it and have a great time if my players interrupted the enemies' speech to do something fun, awesome, or interesting.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Oxventure, Season 5, Episode 3, "Centaur of Attention" (at the end of the episode just after the 1h19m mark). Conversation continued into the next episode with the player being a bit huffy that everyone disagreed with what the player did and further tried to do...
That player's a better GM in my opinion, far better at running a game than being a PC. Too god-modding as a PC—telling the DM and other players what happened without waiting for any dice or responses from others, but remarkably well-governed without being overbearing as a GM...
That player sees D&D as "Yes, and..." style of improvisational acting where nobody says "no" instead of "Yes, and I try to..." with dice and other players countering the attempt. Doesn't seem to like being told "no" by anyone during a game. A few times in the recent seasons, that player's become a little put-out when someone says "no" and has to be reminded to roll for things rather than things just happening because that player said it happens.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Sometimes your wits are going to fail you if you lack the patience to listen and hear what must be heard.
Should no NPC—ally or opponent—get the chance to speak unless it is in a back and forth with a PC? No rallying of troops with prophecies of glory and immortality to raise morale among its forces? No speeches? No toasts? No tributes? No "cutscenes" to provide insight into the goings-on of key NPCs in characters' backstories delivered as monologues?
How flat is a world in which all but four or five individuals are as I said voiceless manqués and little more than window-dressing outside of combat.
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.
There irony of you advocating for "hear[ing] what must be heard" in a post that fails to understand what the person you are responding to said should not be lost on anyone.
I do not think anyone on this thread is saying "all monologues are bad"--instead, there has been a general consensus of "bad monologues are really bad, be careful if you are using one that you do not make the game worse through your lack of skill."
Looking just at the person you are responding to, that very person noted that monologues are "generally poor storytelling"--generally, by definition, leaving open the possibility of there being times when they would constitute good storytelling. They go on to talk about why they think this is "generally" the case--the fact that many players do not have the skill or training to pull off an effective, engaging monologue--again, the implication is that someone who is skilled at a monologues might be better situated at monologuing, but the general trend is going to be players who cannot pull one off. They also note that a lot of monologues are often shoehorned in places where they do not make sense. I think they might sell short the number of situations where a BBEG monologue could work, but that doesn't mean that there are not errors with the sensibilities of monologues.
"I do not think ..."
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.
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.
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?
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.