No "dumb" villains in my games!


Gamer Life General Discussion

Silver Crusade

Now I'm not talking about villains with an actual low intelligence, I am talking about intelligent villains who pull the stereotypical "dumb" villain mistakes like , laughing for 10 minutes while the players gather themselves, or the villain telling them the whole plan right before he attempts to kill them.

I play my villains as efficient as possible for two reasons.

1: I never liked the classic stupid villain who blows his chance at succeeding because he can't stop laughing, for example.

2: Because my players love it that way. If they ever got wind of me holding back or I am playing a villain with dumb mistakes then they get rather angry because they want me to come at them with full force. Actually, that's how they want me to play all my creatures. They don't see the creatures as just robots who move and act in almost a programmed order. They want the best tactics used because they like the challenge.

I personally don't like dumb villains either. If you beat us then you beat us, don't hold back any punches.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:

Now I'm not talking about villains with an actual low intelligence, I am talking about intelligent villains who pull the stereotypical "dumb" villain mistakes like , laughing for 10 minutes while the players gather themselves, or the villain telling them the whole plan right before he attempts to kill them.

I play my villains as efficient as possible for two reasons.

1: I never liked the classic stupid villain who blows his chance at succeeding because he can't stop laughing, for example.

2: Because my players love it that way. If they ever got wind of me holding back or I am playing a villain with dumb mistakes then they get rather angry because they want me to come at them with full force. Actually, that's how they want me to play all my creatures. They don't see the creatures as just robots who move and act in almost a programmed order. They want the best tactics used because they like the challenge.

I personally don't like dumb villains either. If you beat us then you beat us, don't hold back any punches.

Firstly, I must say I'm hesitant to respond, as I cannot help but to wonder if this is another trolling thread looking for bites; where you wait at the reel with a net of spite and bile to scoop up the hapless fishes with who respond to your presumably interesting treat. My fears made known; I shall continue...

===================================================
I've never had much interest in making evil characters do stupid stuff. Most of my villains are villainous. Most are hardened killers or bloodthirsty beasts. Most will do stuff that suits them, even if it's not "fair" by concepts such as honor, morality, or just seems like a dirty move on the part of the GM (it's not, but it can seem that way). It is no secret on the boards that I am almost cruel when it comes to the crap I put my players through on a regular basis.

That's not to say that there won't be an occasional enemy who is lacking in his villainy, but those are not the norm. For every goblin that stops to pick his nose in the middle of combat (he's actually taking a total defense :P), there are twelve more who are ready to light you on fire.

My NPCs are often ruthless. If they have no good reason to keep you alive (and they rarely do), you can expect them to go for the kill. Coup de grace is not a dirty word at my table. It's a frightening prospect that can and will occur given the opportunity. Some enemies might even take the AoO to make sure one of their enemies won't be healed back into the fight. Especially true with summoned monsters and other "expendables".

My NPCs hunt like they want to live. A wyvern doesn't land into a party of PCs and just decide to fight them. It picks one that looks squishy and tasty, preferably without a tin-can to peel off, and then dives on that one, grapples it, then grapple-moves to take off flying. Congratulations, the wyvern is making off with Jorlax! Better hurry! A few rounds from now, Jorlax is hundreds of feet in the air, tangling with an angry Wyvern with a gnarly grapple. Same deal with sharks. Ever see a party try to swim after a shark with a wizard lodged between his teeth?

My NPCs will do annoying, brutal, terrible things. I have a shadow (the incorporeal undead) sorcerer NPC who may be tasked to attempt to kill the PCs while they are asleep or camping, or just wear them down horribly by constantly interrupting their restful period with hit and run tactics. Float over the camp, mage hand to drop some rocks on people while they're trying to sleep. Maybe mage hand cups of water all over them. Maybe sneak up and slap someone with a touch of idiocy delivered by the 1d6 strength damage touch attack. Then slink into the ground and run off.

Does that stop my BBEGs from delivering a monologue to gloat occasionally? Nah, talking's a free action. Hurray for them. :P


I tend to play to tropes so will have villains make typical mistakes like confining the PCs together in a room, (or simply, not killing them when they have the chance). On the other hand, I try to ensure that the villain acts in character and to their chosen wisdom and intelligence. I feel wisdom is probably the stat required to avoid 'villain mistakes', Dr Evil is undoubtedly supremely intelligent (after all, he invented a death ray, a time machine and gained a PhD from evil university) but he still had a pointlessly slow moving platform.

One of my favorite Order of the Stick cartoons summed up the issue best where Xykon says "divide up the monsters in gradually ascending power and distribute them around the dungeon" "wouldn't it be better to put all the most powerful ones at the front" "better, yes, more fun, no". (I paraphrase as I think this cartoon is only in the collected volume, not on line).

Silver Crusade

Now if I make a bad roll when doing something then I may throw in a dumb villain move.


I try to strike a balance. If one plays villains TOO efficiently, the players start to think the only way to survive is by minmaxing the crap out of their characters and playing the game with a very tactical mindset that can close off certain types of stories. So, while my villains generally try to avoid making the mistakes on the evil overlords list, I don't play them with the assumption that they'll always do the most efficient or pragmatic thing. History is really all the justification that you need for this, as it's full of proof that people who should know better are entirely capable of doing stupid things for impulsive, irrational, or emotional reasons.

Or, as a friend once put it: History shows that smart people are entirely capable of doing very stupid things. They're merely stupid things done with supreme competence.


When houstonderek was hosting games, we used to trade off DMing.
Silverhair was running the "Last Baron" series. We'd made it through LB-1, made a series of tactical blunders in LB-2, and Silverhair, to his credit, had the monsters mop us all up: TPK.
It was my turn to DM next, among cries of "maybe we'll live through this one!" I started with the premise that the PCs had been resurrected for their next mission. I tried to warn them the BBEG was too tough to take on with his minions helping! To no avail. The adventure ended with half the party dead, one serving a life sentence in prison, and one blinded, emasculated, and feebleminded. I didn't feel at all bad about it, and we never did try another adventure with those PCs!
I'm equally ruthless in my home game, but they've learned well: only 2 PCs have died in the campaign so far.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

All villains, if they have and Int or Wis higher than 10, should have read the Evil Overlord List


Ashiel wrote:
More favorite worthy stuff!

This, this, and

TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:
Balance stuff

This.

So, basically, I design villains based on how ruthless and efficient they will be, and structure them in ascending order. As players raise up the rungs of power and fame, they'll find themselves pitted against stronger and more competent villains. Eventually they'll wind up facing off against one of my PC builds designed for this express purpose.

Some of these PCs I actually play or want to play, despite being severely handicapped against most monsters encountered later on in the game (such as my curse/poison/disease themed sorcerer). Some fill in a specific niche that would make for very good sub-bosses, or fit The Dragon role, such as my anti-magic reality warping sorcerer. In most cases I have two differing personalities and motives assigned to them, one for NPCs, and one for PCs.

As is... When you're a first level party, you've got the moronic human trying to unite and control goblin clans. When you're level 20, you're getting blamed for the massacre of entire cities, blamed for spreads of plague and disease, and have to deal with a brutally intelligent, ruthless orcish warlord slaughtering just about everything in his path with tactics to make Mendevian crusaders envious.

And yes, that 'scaling' is not equal to the party level. It gets progressively harder as they level. Not quite to the point of playing catch up, but the players really need to start thinking ahead, and considering how their actions will affect the people and area around them, and how the villain will adapt...

So, yeah. It goes from squishy marshmallow to nintendhard as the game progresses.


I try to run them true to themselves. A 12th level fighter who came from the streets to crawl to the top of a mercenary company is going to be a lot more realistic and dangerous than a half dragon who found a magic sword and started demanding things from the kingdom because it is his birthright.

A lot of classic villains are dumb because they came to power suddenly: working in a lab, getting pooped on by your boss, and getting your face burned off by super power mutagen doesn't make you a tactical genius: it makes you a prick.


To me, I play every villain based on their unique personalities and what knowledge they have -- and I agree with cranewings -- someone who spent their whole lives building a power base is likely a lot more deadly, partially because he's just more disciplined, but also partially because he *rose* to power, and realizes that others could do the same. (Or, really, because he's just that in love with his careful plan and doesn't want extra pieces cluttering up the game board).

Someone, however, instantly *given* power is far less likely to appreciate that it can be taken away, and far more likely to revel in it -- and to underestimate those who don't have it, because of ego (well, hubris really).

For example, a vampire cannot be easily destroyed. As such, older vampires may not fear a group at all -- because even if they do best him in combat, he just goes gaseous and regenerates in his coffin a few miles away. In fact, in a hive, such a villain might work to expose the coffins of some of his rivals for power in the hopes a group might do their dirty work for them. This is the sort of villain who may greatly enjoy toying with his prey and fall victim to taunting and even the dreaded monologue, because, to his mind, he cannot die -- even being "defeated" in combat just makes him go cloudy and return to fight again, this time a bit wiser. When even defeat can't stop you, you're probably extremely confident. (A lich would be in a similar position, thanks to they phylactery, though that's a slower process, so a "death" could mess up his plans.)

A mastermind might send his golems to attack a fortress with the notion that only siege weaponry is likely to slow or stop them (and thus give them a nice obscuring mist to approach under), because he doesn't know that the defenders have a gallon of adamantine weapon blanch at the ready. Again, he's got these "shock troops" that are extremely difficult to harm or destroy, and so he makes the reasonable decision based on their abilities because he doesn't know better.

Remember, too, when dealing with evil opponents, chaotics (generally) like to sow discord and enjoy watching people suffer -- which also lends itself to toying with your opponents, to prolong their agony (some fiends actively feed on suffering). All of these things need to be combined in determining how a situation plays out -- but also explains why more people are afraid of entering a den of kobolds (LE, average int, skilled trapmakers) than a den of goblins.

As a result, in my games, without an unusual leader, an Ogre tribe will likely capture the party to have fun with (or eat) later -- while a Hogoblin Warparty will take the a much more disciplined approach and probably kill them if they've shown themselves at all useful in combat (since such people probably don't make good slaves).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If everyone did things perfectly, there would not be much room for story.

Imperfections of both heroes and villains are a major driving engine.

Dark Archive

shallowsoul wrote:

Now I'm not talking about villains with an actual low intelligence, I am talking about intelligent villains who pull the stereotypical "dumb" villain mistakes like , laughing for 10 minutes while the players gather themselves, or the villain telling them the whole plan right before he attempts to kill them.

I play my villains as efficient as possible for two reasons.

1: I never liked the classic stupid villain who blows his chance at succeeding because he can't stop laughing, for example.

2: Because my players love it that way. If they ever got wind of me holding back or I am playing a villain with dumb mistakes then they get rather angry because they want me to come at them with full force. Actually, that's how they want me to play all my creatures. They don't see the creatures as just robots who move and act in almost a programmed order. They want the best tactics used because they like the challenge.

I personally don't like dumb villains either. If you beat us then you beat us, don't hold back any punches.

I recall a DM similar to you, who's villan's were never dumb, always efficient as possible. Eventually the player gave up in frustration because the villian always seem to know, never made a mistake and the players never got a break. It was incredibly frustrating.

Silver Crusade

carmachu wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

Now I'm not talking about villains with an actual low intelligence, I am talking about intelligent villains who pull the stereotypical "dumb" villain mistakes like , laughing for 10 minutes while the players gather themselves, or the villain telling them the whole plan right before he attempts to kill them.

I play my villains as efficient as possible for two reasons.

1: I never liked the classic stupid villain who blows his chance at succeeding because he can't stop laughing, for example.

2: Because my players love it that way. If they ever got wind of me holding back or I am playing a villain with dumb mistakes then they get rather angry because they want me to come at them with full force. Actually, that's how they want me to play all my creatures. They don't see the creatures as just robots who move and act in almost a programmed order. They want the best tactics used because they like the challenge.

I personally don't like dumb villains either. If you beat us then you beat us, don't hold back any punches.

I recall a DM similar to you, who's villan's were never dumb, always efficient as possible. Eventually the player gave up in frustration because the villian always seem to know, never made a mistake and the players never got a break. It was incredibly frustrating.

Not me at all actually. I never said my villains did everything right and never made mistakes because at the end of the day I am only human. I was actually talking about those stereotypical mistakes that lots of villains seem to take. The dice still decide most of the outcomes.


carmachu wrote:


I recall a DM similar to you, who's villan's were never dumb, always efficient as possible. Eventually the player gave up in frustration because the villian always seem to know, never made a mistake and the players never got a break. It was incredibly frustrating.

This.

Like all things there HAS to be a balance. The villains must be compentant, but not all knowing.

YES, the DM knows that your rogue has a pair of sewn into the lining of his underwear....

NO, Your villain has no reason to SEARCH that...

In every situation, there are things that a good villain SHOULD do, and things that are just plain metagaming. For a DM who is literally sitting behind the screen, listening to the PCS make their plans, it CAN be a tough line to see.

Not EVERY time you mock an enemy who has been a thorn is a 'dumb thing.' Killing everyone who wrongs you instantly gets boring for a villain too.

It's all about who the villain is. If he is at all egotistical then a little laughing is appropriate... If he's scared and knows how tenuous his powerbase is... then a more direct result is appropriate.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I had the party dealing with an invisible, flying caster one game, in which the fighter took control of the macguffin the bad guy had been seeking. I decided that this bruised his ego and caused him to lash out in anger with an attack on the fighter. Naturally his invisibility went away, and he was short work for the party then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just started my adventures in DMing a few days ago with the Shackled City campaign and will be occupied with that for a long time but I am considering running a self made campaign after that. My idea for the final intelligent campaign villain: a 20th level sorcerer with PC treasure that manipulates the various factions in the world into conflict to increase the power of Chaos in the world as the foundation of a ritual to propel himself into godhood. Armed with illusions, a ridiculously high Bluff check and concealed by the Mind Blank spell he uses clever and despicable manipulation techniques to set the Great and the Good at each others throats without them realizing the true source of their conflicts.

At low levels the PCs adventures will involve dealing with the fallout of the plots the villain has already perpetrated, though they won’t realize initially that is what is happening. At high levels they will deal with powerful nations with vast resources tearing each other apart and trying to find the true cause of it all and stop it. I’m thinking it will all cumulate with the PCs discovering the final truth of what is happening and rushing to stop the ritual in a final adventure.

The sorcerer will not be built to be super effective in combat and will not have a large organization, just a few deadly minions as bodyguards but he will use some super nasty tricks against the PCs (I have couple really nasty planned events involving the cursed items dust of sneezing and choking in a hideous trap and a necklace of strangulation cleverly disguised and offered to a PC as a gift from a trusted “friend”). I plan for the investigative process of unraveling what is happening in the campaign to be long and confusing (though ultimately understandable and not frustrating.) and the final fight to be brutal and satisfying. If I do it right the resolution of the final conflict should be an elated “YES! WE’VE FINALLY PUT AN END TO THE MADNESS!” And also a bewildered: “The entire world was almost brought to its knees by one simple, shameless liar? We as a people really need to pay closer attention to what is happening around us!”

I to have always preferred thinking man villains over brutes and the idea of a Campaign Villain spinning the PCs in circles and threatening them using underhanded deception rather than ungodly strength highly appeals to me.


shallowsoul wrote:
the villain telling them the whole plan right before he attempts to kill them.

One thing to remember, this is a story telling technique. The reason you don't need to do it for your game is you've probably already had the PC's discover what the villain is up to. Movie/TV writers tend to assume that people can't remember things for more than a few minutes or aren't following along, so they like to re-explain the plot just prior to the climax. Since you'll have spent hours, days, weeks or even months experiencing the plot with your players that isn't an issue.

That said... I've known plenty of people in real life who've thought they won and gloated when they thought others couldn't stop them.

Also the opportunity to present a twist to the plot should not be overlooked. It shouldn't be done all the time, but there are situations where a monologue is appropriate. It's also an opportunity to connect some dots the players might have missed.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Did you think I would explain my master stroke to you if there was a chance of you effecting its outcome? I'm not a Republic Serial villain. I did it 35 minutes ago."


Which is why Ozymandias truly was the smartest man alive. :)


Irontruth wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
the villain telling them the whole plan right before he attempts to kill them.

One thing to remember, this is a story telling technique. The reason you don't need to do it for your game is you've probably already had the PC's discover what the villain is up to. Movie/TV writers tend to assume that people can't remember things for more than a few minutes or aren't following along, so they like to re-explain the plot just prior to the climax. Since you'll have spent hours, days, weeks or even months experiencing the plot with your players that isn't an issue.

That said... I've known plenty of people in real life who've thought they won and gloated when they thought others couldn't stop them.

Also the opportunity to present a twist to the plot should not be overlooked. It shouldn't be done all the time, but there are situations where a monologue is appropriate. It's also an opportunity to connect some dots the players might have missed.

Truth!

That's just exposition. And sometimes it's needed. I DMed a Marvel Game once, and just botched it all up.

everyone still had fun... but I was very disappointed. The whole game was about stopping Kang from changing history... like 4-5 mini-adventures with minor things happening...

However...

Only the DM knew that those little changes would have been MAJOR ripples... right up to stopping the Avengers and Captain America never being FOUND!!

AWESOME concept... but there was no exposition and the players never had a sense of how awesome the story actually was.


There has to be a balance. Villains are just like any other NPC. There has to be a mixture of funny and serious, smart and stupid, with a wide range of resources that are at their disposal. Otherwise the world will seem very flat, and not nearly as entertaining.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / No "dumb" villains in my games! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion