I have thought of a few methods they might accomplish this. In this question, I am wondering about a potentially more controversial option. I am considering having them attempt to monologue or engage the PC's in dialogue (e.g. offer for them to join his side, explain his plan, answer questions, etc) with a timer running, then increase the battle rounds based on the amount of time they were able to enthrall the PC's with their speech.
I can see some problems with this:
- I haven't used this "on the clock" method before and the players may not recognize what's happening (kind of the point?); I've loosely enforced limiting speech to your turn to maintain a suspension of disbelief
- This could cause balance issues with planning the time depending on if they catch on quickly or not as all (see below)
- It would require significant setup, coordinating clues that may let them read into what is happening while also maintaining a monologue
- Our game is online, so it may be more difficult to implement this strategy
Some details about the campaign/fight (major spoilers for Paizo's Ruins of Azlant AP)
– The BBEG is a veiled master with 6-7 Destined Sorcerer levels. (CL ~18)
– I am increasing their Sorcerer levels to accommodate that I have leveled the party faster than the AP; I can do whatever I want with these levels
– I am willing to alter its spell list a bit, but not completely rewrite it
– Ditto class feature options; the bloodline must remain
– As written, the BBEG's plan takes 20 rounds from the time the PC's enter their floor
– As written, the device takes 20 rounds to charge and is quite visible while doing so. A party member must spend 3 full rounds to disable the device; I am willing to alter the number of rounds before the device triggers, but think the time to disable is good (I already upped the options that takes 2 rounds with no significant drawback to match the other options)
– Attempting to disable it and failing resets the timer
The party will already be in initiative when they arrive in his area (they have to fight or bypass a couple 'mooks' before reaching him) but in our circle of gamers there is a precedent for NPC's to interrupt combat rounds with speech. In this campaign, that even includes the players taking up another potential enemy's offer of working together instead of fighting. In the past, however, it hasn't been relevant that the clock continues moving.
My goal is to cost them a handful of rounds if they are willing to listen to the creature, who is manipulative by nature. I feel this is thematic but unlikely to make the difference in their success or failure in regards to the creature's plan, but I think it would be an epic moment if it does (or comes down to the line).
Is this a bad idea? Has anyone had success doing something like this, and what was needed to pull it off?
Directly related to my question about doing it with spells.
Reminder: per "Good Subjective, Bad Subjective", to answer this question, one would either need direct experience using such a delay tactic or have experienced a GM doing so with them as a player.
Best Answer
It can work, if you are able to signal to the players what you expect from them.
Recently I attempted something in the same vein with my group. The party had come across a major villian and pursued him to his hiding place. Unbeknownst to them, the villain had begun a long-winded ritual to teleport away. The party heard him chanting, with the 'magic in the air slowly building'.
Unfortunately for me, I was not being obvious enough and the players drew the wrong conclusion. They figured that the sound would somehow influence them, plugged their ears and proceeded cautiously - and slowly. The villain got away. The players appeared slightly miffed at being 'cheated' out of the encounter, so we had a brief talk about it after the session.
The lesson here is that it is important to set expectations. Err on the side of being more obvious. Have him making grand, exaggerated gestures, clearly nervous about something. Have him glance at the magic circle behind him from time to time. Have his speech make less and less sense as he obviously has to improvise.
Which is more fun? Having the players quickly figure out that the BBEG is stalling and moving to interrupt him with some choice words or actions? Or spending a lot of time monologuing, then springing it on the players that by not acting and patiently listening to the monologue they've made things worse?
Being more obvious also helps with signalling to your players that they are expected to react. As already pointed out in the answer by indigochild, your players will learn from the consequences of their actions. If they are 'punished' for waiting for you to finish they may become less likely to let you finish monologuing in future scenarios, regardless of whether or not you intended for them to interrupt.