I have a problem with players that thinks they are above the NPCs I created, such as: 1) When being told what to do by an important NPC (giving a quest), they refuse to do it. And when I, as the NPC, insists or threatens them (based on the plot), they didn't care and proceeds to berate me out of character when I set appropriate in-game consequences towards them. When they finally accepted the quest, they continue their berating like "Oh wow, I guess we have to help him then.." In a passive-aggressive tone. And... 2) When I'm delivering a villain monologue/speech, they crack witty jokes and insults that they would say out of character everytime, disrupting the moment.
Is there a way that I could handle this situation? I tried telling them nicely to stop, but they don't seem to care and proceeded with this annoying attitude.
How many players do you have at the table and how many of them do this?
I wouldn't say kicking them out would be the way to go. Perhaps giving them 'the talk' behind the scenes when the game is done and all the other players have left might be a good idea. If they still refuse to give you the time of day and accepting your terms, you might want to put them on suspension for a couple of games until they act more maturely.
Saying that, we had a player with a big ego in our Curse of Strahd campaign. Fudged rolls, always had to be in the spotlight, etc, etc. These kind of chaps can really make a nice evening turn very awkward when something doesn't go their way.
I'm super new as a DM. Going on my seventh session soon. so I'm not the best at advice. Take it as you will.
Players want to play in an open world where their choices matter. If your important npc tells them what to do.. seams they don't like that. So don't have that. Give players more options. Have more written content for them to make other choices.
Then sneak in something related to the story you have. Let them find things in their own that changes the world they are in. If they do something good then the town or whatever hears of it and the players get recognition from it.
There are always consequences for all actions and take notes of what the players do.
Keep dialog to the point. Your npc doesn't have to spell everything out. Just enough to keep players interested in the conversation. If they are cracking jokes at the villians then that villian can stop and simply say. "So there is no point with you then? Fair enough" roll initiative as more of the villians mods come in. Snuck up behind the players as they were to busy picking on the villian to roll perception on the people coming up behind.
Point is that everyone has fun. If they are having fun picking on things then have NPCs that pick on them back. Have NPCs that poke fun of them walking down a road.
I'm a pretty big fan of session zeros - did you have one?
It's a good time to set your expectations to the group. Let them know that you're interested in this kind of play. If they aren't willing to play along, then you might want to consider changing something (have someone else DM?).
Avo had some good advice, though - give them options, and then have those options have consequences. If they choose the "wrong" mission to complete, then the one they were supposed to do fails and the person dies, the object is destroyed, the villain succeeds, etc. If they refuse quests by important individuals, then they will be seen as unreliable and won't be called upon for other missions, and thus will lose out on those rewards.
Of course, again, before you go this route, you should have a talk and get to understand what game the group wants to play. Casual or hardcore? Heavy combat, or heavy RP? Hack-and-slash or political intrigue? Or something in between? Also put your expectations out there. Lay out what you're willing to put up with as a DM. You are more than welcome to say that you would like minimum OOC talk at the table. Of course, this depends if your players want to play a more casual or hardcore game. If they are just there to relax and unwind, then that's not a hardcore game.
You can either adjust your expectations, and thus the game to fit the style that the group wants to play, or if you're really adamant about playing a certain way, then you might need to consider having someone else DM or getting a different group. After all, the DM has to be just as much, if not more, invested in the game than the players. So, if the DM isn't having fun and isn't interested in the game, then the players probably won't either.
Well, you shouldn't railroad if you can avoid it ... if that guy says he don't want to do the quest, then he can sit it out; this may well mean the rest of the group leaves him behind and he has to entertain himself. If he *****es about the realistic consequences, just explain to him that his character is being an *******, and the results are the direct result of his assholery.
As to interrupting the villain monologues, I see two options ... firstly, ask him out of the game not to do so, as it ruins the moment and the mood you're trying to set. Secondly, make a declaration of 'YOU ARE ALL NOW IN-CHARACTER, ANYTHING YOU SAY COMES OUT OF YOUR CHARACTER'S MOUTH UNTIL I STATE OTHERWISE'. Then invoke logical consequences for his actions, likely involving the villain bearing down on him, because ******* character pissed him off.
I'll take all into account! I'll try giving more freedom towards the players. Maybe come up with another way of introducing quests and such (maybe link it with their character's personal story or something) like what Avo said.
If the player thinks they're too big for the lowly NPC, then make that important to how the NPCs react/act toward them. Explain that their actions, the stuff they say toward the NPCs, the interruptions, and all that will be considered in character. I generally make the caveat of; if I can hear it, then it is in character. This facilitates two things, it helps reduce noise at the table and it helps keep the players from saying things that they normally wouldn't.
The group walks into town, the people of the town give wide berth to the group, and starts talking in hushed tones. When the players start to talk to the general goods owner, the tavern keep, guards, etc. have them give short answers, simple answers. Then, when the one character isn't around have the NPCs open up to the other characters. Show that there is a definitive bias toward that player because of attitude. When they're congratulated for their exploits, have everyone in the party get hugs, handshakes, a doll from the little girl, a pie from granny, but this character gets a gruff "thanks" and that's all. The player will most certainly get upset, and then it's time to explain what's going on. Explain that the character's attitude is not welcoming, they seem uninterested in the plights of the world, their attitude makes the NPCs feel like they're not worth this character's effort.
When it comes to the villain and their monologue, well that has two thoughts going for it. Don't get long winded and anything that the villain needs to say should be quick and have an impact. By the time the players reach the villain for the climactic fight, they should already know the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the villain's plot and story. If the players ask questions, then answer them, if there is still information they need, give it to them before, or just after, the fight. The villain should be taunting, pleading, or negotiating with the party when the time comes to fight. The time for exposition has passed, unless the players initiate dialogue, just get on with the fight.
An exception to this is using minions and mooks to throw at the party, have them fight their way through these as the villain does their long speech. Just remember to break it up so the players are active rather than listening to a 5 minute speech. Have the villain say a couple lines, go to the next couple initiatives, say a few villainous lines, a few initiatives, and keep it going. The party will either hear all of the monologue, or they'll harass the villain, either way, react accordingly.
As others have kind of mentioned, the player shouldn't have to take on the quest. If their character wouldn't be interested in doing the thing, its not bad form for them to say no, or what's in it for me, or something similar. As DM, you need to give them a reason to want to do it. Certainly there's a point where there's kind of an implied contract where the DM preps the adventure, and the players run along with what the DM has prepped. But part of the prep work needs to include finding a way to motivate them in character, rather than relying on the metagame aspect, of, either go fight the goblins, or we can all go home, because that's what I have ready today. You should have given the characters a reason to fight the goblins, so they want to, and are excited to, and not just doing what the guy with an exclamation point over his head said so they can get XP.
And a +1 to no villain monologues. Or any monologues, really. It should always be a dialogue. The game is for everyone to play, not for people to sit and listen to the DM talk.
All that said, I may be misreading your post. Could just be the guy is a jerk and his playstyle doesn't work with yours and the rest of the group's. If that's the case, as others have said, have a talk with him (or email him if you're not big on confrontation) out of game and explain what's he's doing is annoying and it should stop. He might not realize he's doing it. Or maybe while everyone is there, start a session by reminding everyone of some of the things about the game that are bothering you. Make it a general reminder without singling him out and see if he catches on.
Well everything has consequences so if the player simply will not work with the NPC then down the road that NPC could cause a whole lot of trouble for the group or even put a price on that players head. No need to force them into a quest, and you shouldn't but always have a reaction to that decision brewing up a storm and unleash it later. Now from what it sounds like to me is that they are simply doing it on purpose in an attempt to make things difficult for you and the other players. This is what it seems like because he is giving you a hard time out of character, so I would take it as he is taking shots at you directly. If you are a new DM then the players should respect that and it sounds like this guy is not. Dont put up with it. Talk to the player and if it continues in character or out then drop him. Most players are eager to engage in your quests/story/world and sure they may not want to do various quests for various reasons. That should be something that can happen and as a DM you just need to make adjustments as the game progresses. In the end if this player or any players are causing issues then you just need to have a chat with them. If they dont like it simply replace them. There are plenty of players out there who want to enjoy a game of D&D and not ruin it for everyone. If need be sit the whole group down together and discuss the issue. Just dont put up with it.
One quick note - I'd say it's more that the players need the *feeling* of freedom, rather than the actual need to prepare lots and lots of different questlines.
As a DM, I always try to make sure the players have a choice - they can do either THIS or THAT or THAT. Always at least two choices when picking questlines, so people don't feel like they have to rebel and gain their independence! (...but they don't necessarily have to know that either one would take place in the same dungeon, possibly pallette-swapped :) )
(Oh, and one thing. You mention "I have a problem with players that thinks they are above the NPCs I created". This IMO isn't a problem. Because the PCs absolutely should be "above the NPCs". Not necessarily in terms of in-game status - the players aren't Kings to start - but absolutely in terms of agency and how much impact they have on the direction of your campaign.)
I must admit, I may have conjured this topic based on how I reacted emotionally on what one of my players personally said to me. There were a few occasions when the consequences of their own actions do drop on them, they tend to blame me for it. Even after I explained why, they think because I'm the "mastermind", that the consequences are made by "me". So they reacted a little harshly. That can be a little hard to take in.
I'll definitely have a chat with the player and talk things through! :)
I do try and give freedom to my players on how they approach things in my campaign. Perhaps I didn't think of the right way to steer them to the right direction of the story/plot. I'm still a learning DM as well, so forgive me if I'm doing things wrong.
I'm still a learning DM as well, so forgive me if I'm doing things wrong.
Welcome to this side of the GM screen! We have cookies².
No need to forgive anything. We all made mistakes at the beginning and continue to make mistakes as we go along. The only way to get better is to keep DMing, make the mistakes, and learn from them. Keep talking to the players, find out what they want, let them know what you want, and build a game where everyone (including you!) gets (most of) what they want. But above all, play more games.
One of the most important discussions to have around the table is the social contract. To put it bluntly, if the players don't want to engage with the game then why are they at the table?
Taking part in a shared game means agreeing to the shared game. For example: If the game is "rescue the princess" then all the players need to agree to rescue the princess and to therefore make characters that want to rescue the princess. If a player makes a character that doesn't want to rescue the princess then they should put it aside and make another character that does.
This also includes agreeing to the tropes of the game. If the agreed game is grimdark then all the players should be playing grimdark. If the GM wants to use the trope of a villain monologue (all the best villains have monologues, like Mr Bison "But for me, it was Tuesday.") then the players need to agree to have their characters listen to it. Cracking jokes is just bad manners (and my response to it is to simply say to the players, "Dudes, that's rude, let me have my villain monologue.")
Again, welcome to GMing.
_____ ² If there are no cookins then you need to make dark and dire threats to the players about how a lack of Toffee Pops can lead to disintegrations of characters. :-)
I have a problem with players that thinks they are above the NPCs I created, such as: 1) When being told what to do by an important NPC (giving a quest), they refuse to do it. And when I, as the NPC, insists or threatens them (based on the plot), they didn't care and proceeds to berate me out of character when I set appropriate in-game consequences towards them. When they finally accepted the quest, they continue their berating like "Oh wow, I guess we have to help him then.." In a passive-aggressive tone. And... 2) When I'm delivering a villain monologue/speech, they crack witty jokes and insults that they would say out of character everytime, disrupting the moment.
Is there a way that I could handle this situation? I tried telling them nicely to stop, but they don't seem to care and proceeded with this annoying attitude.
Refusing to take a quest by an NPC is doable (at least in my campaigns.. Most of the time anyway). But maybe that NPC doesn't like them then, or refuses to talk to them. If they berate you in real life, I love to respond with (in a normal DM tone) "Do you say that?". If they say no. Well then remind them that you expect them to be in character right now. If they say yes, ooooh. That level 17 wizard is gonna show them that a large ego doesn't grant resistances toward finger of death. This is D&D, tell them (and show them) that being a dick has a mirror effect. If you would walk up to someone in real life, and say "**** you *****". They would probably be hostile to you as well. So why wouldn't the elf wizard?
And if the villain is having his speech moment. And they keep making small laughs. Have react, IN-character. "You fools are toying with the wrong person! How dare yo-" "*giggling* at dick joke" "You dare?! *casts fireball*" Or what if he doesn't have a speech. What if the Neutral Evil noble villain, with 7 levels of rogue makes 2 attacks with his +2 rapier of enfeeblement against say, the +1 con wizard. Giggle at that bookworm.
If it simply doesn't stop. Request to play at a friends out. And simply enjoy for once killing your party because you want to. And as tiamat swoops down and kills them all with 4 breaths. get your stuff and leave. Okay maybe not like that but if they don't stop. Even if you tell them not too, I'm sorry but the best thing is to leave the group. It ain't worth you time if they fight against you. Some people don't understand that a DM can leave. And it may be a little tough for them to play without their DM. So, in game, give consequences for their egos. Their out of game berating suddenly is considered cannon. And if they don't stop or strongly disagree with you, tell them of your point of view. And if that don't work, I don't think it's a very good group to play in. Sorry dude. I hope it gets better! ^^
What's your age group? (this can matter, as different age groups might have different norms)
Accepting the quest is just a D&D norm (I mean: the PC's need to start the adventure *somehow*). If a player was antagonistic during the briefing (maybe they have a reason?) I'd mention that, and then elicit their involvement by asking what they think is a good reason for their PC to want to go on the quest.
If a player interrupts a monologue (which is common enough, even for adults... we're all just having fun), I'll pause. I'll then either a) continue (once they are ready to listen), b) ask if that was in-character, c) ask if they desire to hear the monologue, or d) roll init!
If a player seemed genuinely disrespectful, I'd likely ask them about it after the game (if they are a friend), or discontinue playing with them (if they are not a friend). Anyone could have a bad day, but giving/receiving respect definitely becomes a normal expectation for adults (and doing otherwise tends to reduce one's social circle).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi there!
I have a problem with players that thinks they are above the NPCs I created, such as:
1) When being told what to do by an important NPC (giving a quest), they refuse to do it. And when I, as the NPC, insists or threatens them (based on the plot), they didn't care and proceeds to berate me out of character when I set appropriate in-game consequences towards them. When they finally accepted the quest, they continue their berating like "Oh wow, I guess we have to help him then.." In a passive-aggressive tone.
And...
2) When I'm delivering a villain monologue/speech, they crack witty jokes and insults that they would say out of character everytime, disrupting the moment.
Is there a way that I could handle this situation? I tried telling them nicely to stop, but they don't seem to care and proceeded with this annoying attitude.
How many players do you have at the table and how many of them do this?
I wouldn't say kicking them out would be the way to go. Perhaps giving them 'the talk' behind the scenes when the game is done and all the other players have left might be a good idea. If they still refuse to give you the time of day and accepting your terms, you might want to put them on suspension for a couple of games until they act more maturely.
Saying that, we had a player with a big ego in our Curse of Strahd campaign. Fudged rolls, always had to be in the spotlight, etc, etc. These kind of chaps can really make a nice evening turn very awkward when something doesn't go their way.
I'm super new as a DM. Going on my seventh session soon. so I'm not the best at advice. Take it as you will.
Players want to play in an open world where their choices matter. If your important npc tells them what to do.. seams they don't like that. So don't have that. Give players more options. Have more written content for them to make other choices.
Then sneak in something related to the story you have. Let them find things in their own that changes the world they are in. If they do something good then the town or whatever hears of it and the players get recognition from it.
There are always consequences for all actions and take notes of what the players do.
Keep dialog to the point. Your npc doesn't have to spell everything out. Just enough to keep players interested in the conversation. If they are cracking jokes at the villians then that villian can stop and simply say. "So there is no point with you then? Fair enough" roll initiative as more of the villians mods come in. Snuck up behind the players as they were to busy picking on the villian to roll perception on the people coming up behind.
Point is that everyone has fun. If they are having fun picking on things then have NPCs that pick on them back. Have NPCs that poke fun of them walking down a road.
Lots of fun things to do.
I'm a pretty big fan of session zeros - did you have one?
It's a good time to set your expectations to the group. Let them know that you're interested in this kind of play. If they aren't willing to play along, then you might want to consider changing something (have someone else DM?).
Avo had some good advice, though - give them options, and then have those options have consequences. If they choose the "wrong" mission to complete, then the one they were supposed to do fails and the person dies, the object is destroyed, the villain succeeds, etc. If they refuse quests by important individuals, then they will be seen as unreliable and won't be called upon for other missions, and thus will lose out on those rewards.
Of course, again, before you go this route, you should have a talk and get to understand what game the group wants to play. Casual or hardcore? Heavy combat, or heavy RP? Hack-and-slash or political intrigue? Or something in between?
Also put your expectations out there. Lay out what you're willing to put up with as a DM. You are more than welcome to say that you would like minimum OOC talk at the table. Of course, this depends if your players want to play a more casual or hardcore game. If they are just there to relax and unwind, then that's not a hardcore game.
You can either adjust your expectations, and thus the game to fit the style that the group wants to play, or if you're really adamant about playing a certain way, then you might need to consider having someone else DM or getting a different group. After all, the DM has to be just as much, if not more, invested in the game than the players. So, if the DM isn't having fun and isn't interested in the game, then the players probably won't either.
Well, you shouldn't railroad if you can avoid it ... if that guy says he don't want to do the quest, then he can sit it out; this may well mean the rest of the group leaves him behind and he has to entertain himself. If he *****es about the realistic consequences, just explain to him that his character is being an *******, and the results are the direct result of his assholery.
As to interrupting the villain monologues, I see two options ... firstly, ask him out of the game not to do so, as it ruins the moment and the mood you're trying to set. Secondly, make a declaration of 'YOU ARE ALL NOW IN-CHARACTER, ANYTHING YOU SAY COMES OUT OF YOUR CHARACTER'S MOUTH UNTIL I STATE OTHERWISE'. Then invoke logical consequences for his actions, likely involving the villain bearing down on him, because ******* character pissed him off.
Alright!
I'll take all into account! I'll try giving more freedom towards the players.
Maybe come up with another way of introducing quests and such (maybe link it with their character's personal story or something) like what Avo said.
Hopefully they'll listen..
Thanks for the advice guys! :)
If the player thinks they're too big for the lowly NPC, then make that important to how the NPCs react/act toward them. Explain that their actions, the stuff they say toward the NPCs, the interruptions, and all that will be considered in character. I generally make the caveat of; if I can hear it, then it is in character. This facilitates two things, it helps reduce noise at the table and it helps keep the players from saying things that they normally wouldn't.
The group walks into town, the people of the town give wide berth to the group, and starts talking in hushed tones. When the players start to talk to the general goods owner, the tavern keep, guards, etc. have them give short answers, simple answers. Then, when the one character isn't around have the NPCs open up to the other characters. Show that there is a definitive bias toward that player because of attitude. When they're congratulated for their exploits, have everyone in the party get hugs, handshakes, a doll from the little girl, a pie from granny, but this character gets a gruff "thanks" and that's all. The player will most certainly get upset, and then it's time to explain what's going on. Explain that the character's attitude is not welcoming, they seem uninterested in the plights of the world, their attitude makes the NPCs feel like they're not worth this character's effort.
When it comes to the villain and their monologue, well that has two thoughts going for it. Don't get long winded and anything that the villain needs to say should be quick and have an impact. By the time the players reach the villain for the climactic fight, they should already know the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the villain's plot and story. If the players ask questions, then answer them, if there is still information they need, give it to them before, or just after, the fight. The villain should be taunting, pleading, or negotiating with the party when the time comes to fight. The time for exposition has passed, unless the players initiate dialogue, just get on with the fight.
An exception to this is using minions and mooks to throw at the party, have them fight their way through these as the villain does their long speech. Just remember to break it up so the players are active rather than listening to a 5 minute speech. Have the villain say a couple lines, go to the next couple initiatives, say a few villainous lines, a few initiatives, and keep it going. The party will either hear all of the monologue, or they'll harass the villain, either way, react accordingly.
As others have kind of mentioned, the player shouldn't have to take on the quest. If their character wouldn't be interested in doing the thing, its not bad form for them to say no, or what's in it for me, or something similar. As DM, you need to give them a reason to want to do it. Certainly there's a point where there's kind of an implied contract where the DM preps the adventure, and the players run along with what the DM has prepped. But part of the prep work needs to include finding a way to motivate them in character, rather than relying on the metagame aspect, of, either go fight the goblins, or we can all go home, because that's what I have ready today. You should have given the characters a reason to fight the goblins, so they want to, and are excited to, and not just doing what the guy with an exclamation point over his head said so they can get XP.
And a +1 to no villain monologues. Or any monologues, really. It should always be a dialogue. The game is for everyone to play, not for people to sit and listen to the DM talk.
All that said, I may be misreading your post. Could just be the guy is a jerk and his playstyle doesn't work with yours and the rest of the group's. If that's the case, as others have said, have a talk with him (or email him if you're not big on confrontation) out of game and explain what's he's doing is annoying and it should stop. He might not realize he's doing it. Or maybe while everyone is there, start a session by reminding everyone of some of the things about the game that are bothering you. Make it a general reminder without singling him out and see if he catches on.
Well everything has consequences so if the player simply will not work with the NPC then down the road that NPC could cause a whole lot of trouble for the group or even put a price on that players head. No need to force them into a quest, and you shouldn't but always have a reaction to that decision brewing up a storm and unleash it later. Now from what it sounds like to me is that they are simply doing it on purpose in an attempt to make things difficult for you and the other players. This is what it seems like because he is giving you a hard time out of character, so I would take it as he is taking shots at you directly. If you are a new DM then the players should respect that and it sounds like this guy is not. Dont put up with it. Talk to the player and if it continues in character or out then drop him. Most players are eager to engage in your quests/story/world and sure they may not want to do various quests for various reasons. That should be something that can happen and as a DM you just need to make adjustments as the game progresses. In the end if this player or any players are causing issues then you just need to have a chat with them. If they dont like it simply replace them. There are plenty of players out there who want to enjoy a game of D&D and not ruin it for everyone. If need be sit the whole group down together and discuss the issue. Just dont put up with it.
One quick note - I'd say it's more that the players need the *feeling* of freedom, rather than the actual need to prepare lots and lots of different questlines.
As a DM, I always try to make sure the players have a choice - they can do either THIS or THAT or THAT. Always at least two choices when picking questlines, so people don't feel like they have to rebel and gain their independence! (...but they don't necessarily have to know that either one would take place in the same dungeon, possibly pallette-swapped :) )
(Oh, and one thing. You mention "I have a problem with players that thinks they are above the NPCs I created". This IMO isn't a problem. Because the PCs absolutely should be "above the NPCs". Not necessarily in terms of in-game status - the players aren't Kings to start - but absolutely in terms of agency and how much impact they have on the direction of your campaign.)
Thanks again all for the advice!
I must admit, I may have conjured this topic based on how I reacted emotionally on what one of my players personally said to me. There were a few occasions when the consequences of their own actions do drop on them, they tend to blame me for it. Even after I explained why, they think because I'm the "mastermind", that the consequences are made by "me". So they reacted a little harshly. That can be a little hard to take in.
I'll definitely have a chat with the player and talk things through! :)
I do try and give freedom to my players on how they approach things in my campaign. Perhaps I didn't think of the right way to steer them to the right direction of the story/plot. I'm still a learning DM as well, so forgive me if I'm doing things wrong.
At least you recognized what you might've done wrong and strive to correct it. Keep it up, dude!
Welcome to this side of the GM screen! We have cookies².
No need to forgive anything. We all made mistakes at the beginning and continue to make mistakes as we go along. The only way to get better is to keep DMing, make the mistakes, and learn from them. Keep talking to the players, find out what they want, let them know what you want, and build a game where everyone (including you!) gets (most of) what they want. But above all, play more games.
One of the most important discussions to have around the table is the social contract. To put it bluntly, if the players don't want to engage with the game then why are they at the table?
Taking part in a shared game means agreeing to the shared game. For example: If the game is "rescue the princess" then all the players need to agree to rescue the princess and to therefore make characters that want to rescue the princess. If a player makes a character that doesn't want to rescue the princess then they should put it aside and make another character that does.
This also includes agreeing to the tropes of the game. If the agreed game is grimdark then all the players should be playing grimdark. If the GM wants to use the trope of a villain monologue (all the best villains have monologues, like Mr Bison "But for me, it was Tuesday.") then the players need to agree to have their characters listen to it. Cracking jokes is just bad manners (and my response to it is to simply say to the players, "Dudes, that's rude, let me have my villain monologue.")
Again, welcome to GMing.
_____
² If there are no cookins then you need to make dark and dire threats to the players about how a lack of Toffee Pops can lead to disintegrations of characters. :-)
Refusing to take a quest by an NPC is doable (at least in my campaigns.. Most of the time anyway). But maybe that NPC doesn't like them then, or refuses to talk to them.
If they berate you in real life, I love to respond with (in a normal DM tone) "Do you say that?". If they say no. Well then remind them that you expect them to be in character right now.
If they say yes, ooooh. That level 17 wizard is gonna show them that a large ego doesn't grant resistances toward finger of death. This is D&D, tell them (and show them) that being a dick has a mirror effect. If you would walk up to someone in real life, and say "**** you *****". They would probably be hostile to you as well. So why wouldn't the elf wizard?
And if the villain is having his speech moment. And they keep making small laughs. Have react, IN-character.
"You fools are toying with the wrong person! How dare yo-"
"*giggling* at dick joke"
"You dare?! *casts fireball*"
Or what if he doesn't have a speech. What if the Neutral Evil noble villain, with 7 levels of rogue makes 2 attacks with his +2 rapier of enfeeblement against say, the +1 con wizard.
Giggle at that bookworm.
If it simply doesn't stop. Request to play at a friends out. And simply enjoy for once killing your party because you want to. And as tiamat swoops down and kills them all with 4 breaths.
get your stuff and leave. Okay maybe not like that but if they don't stop. Even if you tell them not too, I'm sorry but the best thing is to leave the group. It ain't worth you time if they fight against you. Some people don't understand that a DM can leave. And it may be a little tough for them to play without their DM. So, in game, give consequences for their egos. Their out of game berating suddenly is considered cannon. And if they don't stop or strongly disagree with you, tell them of your point of view. And if that don't work, I don't think it's a very good group to play in. Sorry dude. I hope it gets better! ^^
What's your age group? (this can matter, as different age groups might have different norms)