Cinematic gloating and nonviolence

[Gigermann]

I had a recurring problem with this sort of thing in my early GMing career. The players later suggested that I just "declare a cut-scene," and let the BG say his piece first before letting the PCs do anything. This works, but it's not ideal.

Since you've declared that this is a "cinematic" type game (for lack of a better term), I might recommend this: there is a body of thought that one rewards a player who plays his disadvantages when it is inconvenient to do so—there's no reason you couldn't similarly reward a player for playing in genre when it is inconvenient. Listening to the soliloquy, rather than pulling a Han Solo (AKA "shooting first"), would certainly qualify.

[Witchking]

I am all for the genre conventions...I would go with the tacit understanding that first use of Deadly Force = no CPs.

Of course a benevolent GM also recoginzes there are times to "break the rules."

I am thinking of a time in a mostly social puzzle type run (combat map would come out 1 time in 3 if that)...

I was playing a warrior priest...not rash or a hothead but one with the tempered wisdom of age. Quite willing to talk rather than fight. Experienced enough that he had nothing left to prove.

We went to the location of the "suspected" hideout. I was in front...I knocked on the catacomb's door. It was answered by a nondescript male human. Everyone (GM+PC's) wait for me to begin the patter/questioning to get us in...it had to be something good...they had two kidnap victims after all...

But said priest had resolved his doubts a fair while before...so my opening dialogue...while he still had his hand on the doorknob...was "Fast Draw Broadsword and Rapid Strike Swing Twice to the Torso." Everyone was a bit speechless (especially the guy who was split down to the belt)...as I continued my way into the short labyrinth basically hackmastering anything that did not instantly surrender. It was probably for the best that I was right. It certainly was a short circut and not expected by anyone...but it was still within the limits of the sandbox set by the GM. A good time was had by all and the hostages were rescued...if I had been wrong we would all have had a good time roleplaying my trial for murdering an innocent homeless man...

So I am all for the GM setting the limits...just so long as he is willing to give room within said limits.

[Miles]

Most of the suggestions in this thread seem to be providing In Character solutions to an Out Of Character problem. That's just going to make the players look for increasingly convoluted In Character ways to get around the penalties you dictate for their behavior.

What you've got is a play-style disconnect. It's not going to go away until you sit down with your players and explain that this is a heroic, cinematic game where you let the bad guy monologue and don't try to poke bullet shaped holes in him. Let them know what you're trying to do as a GM, and get an idea of what they want to do as players.

[starslayer]

I am not sure this is a problem of rules so much of GM/Player communication and/or wanting to be genre-defying.

I played in a super-hero game; the GM said it was set in 'post WWII stuff, so that we can still fight Nazi remnants'; he failed to communicate that he did not want it to behave like the comics of those times (superman punches people through walls, the shadow shoots first and asks questions later, etc), but more along the lines of the golden age 4 colour stuff (superman blithely stands his ground while being shot only to have the pistol thrown at him, the shadow no longer exists and stories about coming of age mutants masks discrimination and social issues of the time). This lead to some interesting encounters as our foes would attempt to monologue only to be caught chewing bullets, lightning, or barrels of explosives.

Eventually we had a discussion about this, and decided to approach the problem ironically; The villains keep trying to monologue- but the PCs keep reacting like reasonable people would in such a situation; a running gag even developed about the party immortal having a 'fun times' package for every situation 'Another regenerator?: Grab Fun times #57: Acid, a metal drum, chains, and quick set concrete'.

It sounds like you need to approach your players and explain that you want the game to follow the more comic/TV style of allowing the foe to deliver his great speech, and engage foes with fisticuffs and otherwise behave like the people in the shows/comics do. Telling them this outright will likely yield better results then attempting to surreptitiously guide there actions through additional rules.


PS:
I think the comparison to Dr Who Adventures In Time And Space is a poor one- because while yes, killing is bad in that system; mechanically a foe can be defeated by depleting any of there core stats, and you can attempt to deplete a core state by all kinds of measures- so you can 'win the fight' by making a convince roll; and talking attempts take precedent over shooty attempts; so talking you foe to defeat is the way to 'win' the combat most effectively- but it takes a quite abstracted game system to allow that sort of thing. GURPS is rather non-abstracted, and related to real world equivalents at most junctures; if you want an abstracted game you either need a LOT of optional rules (not just a single 'don't use guns' rule), or you should use an abstracted system.

[Lamech]

Two problems
1) Their shooting villians during their monolouges? The thing where they explain their evil master plan? That one? The one where the PC's learn that the at the stroke of midnight the moon rays will focus on the macguffin destroying it and allowing the generic monsters to storm forth form the generic monster dimension and consume New York?
Explain to them why shooting villains while they explain their plan to you is a bad idea. If they do it, don't feel obligated to give them a chance to stop whatever he would have explained.

2) Shooting guns way to much. If the goon squad gets shot at have them retreat and then have them go bug the law enforcement about the gun wielding maniacs. That should discourage shooting first at least. Their are nasty consequences of firing off guns in real life. Include them here. Also point out that if they don't follow genre conventions mooks won't either.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by starslayer

I am not sure this is a problem of rules so much of GM/Player communication and/or wanting to be genre-defying.

I played in a super-hero game; the GM said it was set in 'post WWII stuff, so that we can still fight Nazi remnants'; he failed to communicate that he did not want it to behave like the comics of those times (superman punches people through walls, the shadow shoots first and asks questions later, etc), .

Superman didn't punch people through walls and the Shadow was long gone by the post world war II era.

[Michael Thayne]

I second Lamech. If you want to emulate fiction where all fights are fistfights, use the "gun control" rule that's suggested a couple places, where mooks threaten PCs with guns, but never shoot them... until the PCs shoot first. And a dead villain can't explain how to deactivate his doomsday machine.

But I wonder if you're doing the genre right. Isn't the traditional "villain gloating" something that happens when the villains have the PCs at their mercy? If the PCs try to keep fighting when this happens, it should go poorly with them. The fact that it doesn't tells me you don't have enough mooks backing the villain up in these scenes, or you need to make the villain more combat-capable (maybe it suddenly turns out he can block raygun-blasts?), or something.

[starslayer]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Superman didn't punch people through walls and the Shadow was long gone by the post world war II era.

I had to check just to make sure I was not misremembering things:

WW2 - 1939 to 1945
The shadow Movies - 1940-1946
The shadow comic books: 1940 - Sept. 1949

I could not find one of superman punching someone through a wall, but its documented as something that happened on TV Tropes; so I have evidently either not completely fabricated this event in my mind, or several other individuals also arrived at the same fabrication.

Here are some pictures of superman throwing a person at a wall and then catching him at the last minute, punching regular people, drop-kicking a fellow after bursting through a window, and generally using a 'violence first, questions later' attitude; 1950s era superman
dccomicsartists.com/superart/wayneboring.htm

Here is a 1940s era superman being restrained from punching out a businessman/blue collar evil doer:
www.jimnolt.com/Graphics/NB6-StopPunch.jpg

So I stand by my original statements.

[Lord Carnifex]

Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company

Without tinkering too heavily in the rules, you might require all PCs to take a disadvantage which would make them hesitate to randomly open fire, such as Self Defence Only Pacifism or Reluctant Killer. You might also impose the Imperial Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy rule (a side's first volley always misses) for everyone.

I like this. I'd refine it further, and say that each side's first volley always misses unless the other side opened fire first. All shots after that are rolled normally. That is, as long as the PC's hold their fire, they're safe from the mooks' guns. If the PCs open up first, then they automatically miss, but the mooks can shoot back normally. This might keep them from starting shootouts unless it's really important.

[Apache]

Well, in my old superheroes game (Champions) way back in the day, I had what was effectively a 'Guild Of Calamatous Intent' (ie, Bad Guy Union), that had sat down with the League of Good Guys and hammered out some ground rules.....just like on 'The Venture Brothers'. My reasoning was that if you are going to go with the 4-color morality gig, go all the way, baby.

BTW, I highly recommend you watch at least the first season of 'The Venture Brothers'...you might get some ideas on how to...train...your players effectively...:)