PDA

View Full Version : Could an RPG system work with a 'main character'?



CharonsHelper
2016-01-29, 12:38 PM
One of the mainstays of an RPG system is the party. The different characters are intended to be more or less balanced. (With various levels of success between different systems.) Even if certain characters are inferior in certain circumstances, as a whole there is supposed to be a certain level of balance.

This works pretty well. There are all sorts of reasons to do it that way - most notably because everyone wants to be the hero instead of the sidekick.

However - that does limit the kind of stories that one can tell. A lot of stories DO resolve around a single main character and his buddies.

My big question is - if an RPG system was designed with that in mind from the ground up - could it work? One of the big reasons that in an RPG system players get frustrated when one character is the lead, is because they're not supposed to be. Would it be less frustrating if the players all knew that they WERE the lead going in.

Now - I'm not just saying that such a system should just make them the most powerful straight up. My first thought is mechanics somewhat similar to how warjacks work in Warmachine. The main character (lets call him Fred) gets the magic points and can either use them himself, or Fred can channel them through the other players (his 'familiars' or 'pawns' or whatever) who can then use the main character's magic in different ways, probably more efficiently (if not more powerfully) than the main character can. However, without Fred channeling magic into them, the 'pawns' are just decent fighters - not anything like a PC is used to being.

However, the group, to NPCs, would be known as Fred's group. He'd be the equivalent of the lead singer of the band. Villains would direct threats at him. Kings would ask for Fred's help. etc.

Now - I'm not saying that this would ever become a mainstay system, but it seems like it would let you tell a different sort of story. Do you think that the players of the 'pawns' would be too frustrated by the premise of their characters being - in the fluff - somewhat subservient to Fred, or, since it's known that the world just works that way going in, would it be fine?

Would it work decently for a short 1-3 session game, but too annoying for a long campaign? (I know that some RPGs are really designed to be 1-shots.)

I'm not saying I'm planning a game like this at all. I was just brainstorming at random and was hoping to get some feedback.

Douche
2016-01-29, 12:46 PM
If I wanted to be the sole person who has any impact on the world whatsoever, I'd play Skyrim. Or any other number of games where it seems like it's up to the player alone to determine the entire fate of the world.

Narratively, you could make one guy be like the prince or something, and he'd be central to the storyline without forcing 4 other people to just sit around for 4 hours at a time basking in his glory.

Daremonai
2016-01-29, 12:51 PM
It sort of works in Ars Magicka, where everyone plays the sidekicks of one player's mage...but that's on the understanding that they'll get to be the main wizard character with their own retinue later.

Ashtagon
2016-01-29, 12:58 PM
Back in the 1980s, there was an RPG made based around the TV series Doctor Who (insanely popular at the time). The RPG played up to the Doctor being the star of the story. I leave determining the popularity of this RPG as an exercise for the dedicated student.

Arbane
2016-01-29, 02:09 PM
The Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG apparently did this fairly well - the Hero character got superhuman abilities, the White Hat got more Hero Points, which let them influence the game on a 'meta' level (often through sheer luck).

Segev
2016-01-29, 02:18 PM
What, in your conception of this, would distinguish the "main character" from the rest of the PCs?

While you can reference other works, focus on how this would look in-game. What is it that this would enable you to do that you couldn't with a system that assumes the traditional ensemble cast?

Frozen_Feet
2016-01-29, 02:24 PM
I think this has been tried, with varying success. I heard there's a newer Doctor Who game, and one player still plays the Doctor. And then there's Kagematsu, of course.

This said, I don't think it's enough the other players understand they're going to play side characters, they need to actually want to do that. I've seen this kind of player in freeform often enough to know they exist. It might be tricky to get more than one in a single group, especially to play accessory to a single character.

I also think the player of the main character needs more leadership potential than usual. They might end up having to serve as a sort of second GM, perhaps the GM, to make sure other players are enjoying themselves.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-29, 02:40 PM
What, in your conception of this, would distinguish the "main character" from the rest of the PCs?

While you can reference other works, focus on how this would look in-game. What is it that this would enable you to do that you couldn't with a system that assumes the traditional ensemble cast?

Well - if you haven't played Warmachine I guess that my explanation was bad.

Basically (as an example of how it could be played) the main character would have a magic resource which, each turn, they could either
1. Use themselves.
2. Give to other players to use through some sort of connection

So - the main character would be in control of the resource management for the entire group - as they are the source of all of the group's mana/magic points/whatever. The other characters can't use any abilities beyond mediocre 'I swing my sword' etc. without some of that resource, and can't store the mana. (possibly very limited ability to store the mana)

In the fluff - the other characters have been connected to the main one through some sort of ritual etc. (possibly permanent - possibly they could theoretically undo with another ritual)

Again - I haven't actually built such a system. That's just an example of how having a main character could allow for interesting mechanics in combat. And as I said above, it allows for different sorts of storylines.

Segev
2016-01-29, 03:00 PM
No, I got your theoretical mechanic. I'm more asking about why you'd play this. What kind of story are you looking to tell that cannot or should not be told with a more ensemble cast? What does this facilitate?

CharonsHelper
2016-01-29, 03:49 PM
No, I got your theoretical mechanic. I'm more asking about why you'd play this. What kind of story are you looking to tell that cannot or should not be told with a more ensemble cast? What does this facilitate?

Fair enough. There are quite a few stories which are better told with a single primary focus character and a few supporting ones. (generally more common than ensembles in books & movies)

As an example - the setting could be one in which the mages are the nobility, ruling over the people at large with their powers. They quite literally lord over the populace, though they do use their powers to protect the citizenry from all of the monsters and ravening beasts which inhabit the world. Possibly from foreign invaders who want to take over and would be much worse rulers.

Perhaps when a mage reaches their age of majority, they cast a ritual to find those who best mesh with their magical energies. These people found by the ritual are then ritually made their 'pawns'. Generally the pawns' lot in life is better - gaining wealth and standing, becoming great warriors through the magical bond, but they have no choice in the matter, and are still politically subservient to their mage master.

This sort of thing could lead to an interesting party dynamic so long as everyone was on board. Again - this would not be a go-to system for every game, but it might be an interesting change of pace.

AceOfFools
2016-01-29, 04:18 PM
A party who wants to do this can deliberately build to do this in DnD, even given a balanced build rules. Have the "hero PC" pick a class, and have other characters pick build options desingned to complement and support this primary build. The rest is roleplaying.

This works even better if they can get the GM to sign off, and give the hero PC bigger stat array or special abilities.

Stories that work for this paradigm (if the party signs off, or if you have a solo game): reclaim lost throne, romance archs, anything with the chosen one, Pokémon-style monster taimer, a new god arises...

Ravian
2016-01-29, 05:52 PM
Back in the 1980s, there was an RPG made based around the TV series Doctor Who (insanely popular at the time). The RPG played up to the Doctor being the star of the story. I leave determining the popularity of this RPG as an exercise for the dedicated student.

They've made a modern version that's actually pretty good as a system. That said, it seems it really doesn't know what to with the Doctor either. It more or less shrugs its shoulders and recommends either relying on an honor system that the Doctor player doesn't abuse the fact that he's going to be more skilled than most of the other players. (alternately suggesting a rotating doctor player system) Or limiting the Doctor to an NPC role.
Frankly if I was to use the system, it sounds like it would do far better for playing as members of UNIT or Torchwood, where the Doctor only shows up for really big events as an NPC.

Frankly I think Doctor Who would be the worst case for this since it not only sidelines the other players, it also limits the player of the Doctor to play a set character. It's one thing to play in an established universe, or to play a character deliberately emulating a preexisting character. It's another thing when the game forces someone to play as a preexisting character, which while often somewhat varied in terms of personality, is still so distinctive that it sounds far too limiting.

As far as playing a Protagonist in an RPG, I actually wonder if that's really such a good idea in general. RPG's are by design social, and it simply seems unfair to only make one player important.

That said if the players themselves are all right with it, there's nothing stopping you. Ars magica definitely has a built-in mechanic for a rotating system for the "protagonist" role, but there's nothing stopping a character from simply voluntarily taking a secondary role.

One thing I really wouldn't recommend is trying to force that without everyone's consent though. There are some games where some will naturally gravitate to a leadership position of course (for example: Rogue Trader and Only War tend to put people in some degree of hierarchy, and typically GoT rpg will have people with seniority or titles.)
But you certainly shouldn't confer main character status only on the person in charge.

napoleon_in_rag
2016-01-29, 07:31 PM
One of the mainstays of an RPG system is the party. The different characters are intended to be more or less balanced. (With various levels of success between different systems.) Even if certain characters are inferior in certain circumstances, as a whole there is supposed to be a certain level of balance.

This works pretty well. There are all sorts of reasons to do it that way - most notably because everyone wants to be the hero instead of the sidekick.

However - that does limit the kind of stories that one can tell. A lot of stories DO resolve around a single main character and his buddies.

My big question is - if an RPG system was designed with that in mind from the ground up - could it work? One of the big reasons that in an RPG system players get frustrated when one character is the lead, is because they're not supposed to be. Would it be less frustrating if the players all knew that they WERE the lead going in.

Now - I'm not just saying that such a system should just make them the most powerful straight up. My first thought is mechanics somewhat similar to how warjacks work in Warmachine. The main character (lets call him Fred) gets the magic points and can either use them himself, or Fred can channel them through the other players (his 'familiars' or 'pawns' or whatever) who can then use the main character's magic in different ways, probably more efficiently (if not more powerfully) than the main character can. However, without Fred channeling magic into them, the 'pawns' are just decent fighters - not anything like a PC is used to being.

However, the group, to NPCs, would be known as Fred's group. He'd be the equivalent of the lead singer of the band. Villains would direct threats at him. Kings would ask for Fred's help. etc.

Now - I'm not saying that this would ever become a mainstay system, but it seems like it would let you tell a different sort of story. Do you think that the players of the 'pawns' would be too frustrated by the premise of their characters being - in the fluff - somewhat subservient to Fred, or, since it's known that the world just works that way going in, would it be fine?

Would it work decently for a short 1-3 session game, but too annoying for a long campaign? (I know that some RPGs are really designed to be 1-shots.)

I'm not saying I'm planning a game like this at all. I was just brainstorming at random and was hoping to get some feedback.

I tried something similar a few years ago. I had two players who would reliably show up every week and a bunch of other players who would just unexpectedly drop in from time to time.

So the two reliable players became the "Main Characters". If someone else dropped in on a session, I would give them a "bit part" of a character that would only last a session or two.

If someone showed up I had a 3 by 5 card with stats, equipment, and a simple story. Examples:
-A Monk and his novice travelling the same road as the PCs
-A drunken dwarf at the inn where the PCs start who has a key piece of information
-A Half orc hermit wandering through the dungeon the PCs are exploring

If you're on this site, you probably have enough imagination to come up with something better.

Usually they were a level or two below the main character, so as not to take away from the main role. If a bit part character dies, no big deal. If a bit part player doesn't show up to the next session, the character becomes a NPC. I usually explained this to the player before they started.

I even tried having a "bit part" player have some nefarious role in the plot, like being a spy but that didn't work out. The PCs caught on to quickly due to some poor role playing.

Pros:
-Its a good way to introduce new players to the game.
-It allows something of the "party feel" to play even when you only have two reliable players.
-If you've got some big, overarching plot, its easier to run with two players. At least for me.
-Sometimes a bit part becomes a main character if the player gets into it.

Cons:
-The bit part PCs often try to steal the limelight from the Main Characters. Especially when the main characters aren't assertive enough. Like if C3PO blew up the death star.
-Sometimes the Main Characters try to quarterback too much.
-What happens when a main character dies?
-One of the Bit Parts felt like he was the "Red Shirt" of the group.
-AS DM, you always have to have a few bit parts ready to go. And have a plan on how the bit part becomes integrated in the party. So extra prep time.
-The bit part player probably doesn't care about what happens to the character. Sometimes leads to bad role playing.


My experience DMing this overall was sort of mixed. The biggest thing you need to make it work is having two solid RPG players for the Main Characters.

obryn
2016-01-29, 07:50 PM
In a lighter game, you could run two or more groups in alternating sessions. Joe is the hero of this party, Sally is the hero of that party, etc. Bring the heroes together for special occasions.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-29, 07:59 PM
One thing I really wouldn't recommend is trying to force that without everyone's consent though. There are some games where some will naturally gravitate to a leadership position of course (for example: Rogue Trader and Only War tend to put people in some degree of hierarchy, and typically GoT rpg will have people with seniority or titles.)
But you certainly shouldn't confer main character status only on the person in charge.

Oh - I agree entirely. Even IF such a game were made, it would need a huge disclaimer that all the players involved were on-board with the idea.

goto124
2016-01-29, 08:38 PM
If I wanted to be the sole person who has any impact on the world whatsoever, I'd play Skyrim. Or any other number of games where it seems like it's up to the player alone to determine the entire fate of the world.

Solo campaign!

Milo v3
2016-01-29, 10:33 PM
I've played one game where the Protagonist was an NPC, and everyone was doing stuff to have their lives revolve around that NPC since the game was meant to reflect the Highschool Harem Comedy genre of anime. So that's one method of having it work.

goto124
2016-01-30, 12:26 AM
In a military game, soldiers can constantly perform actions just because they fear Da Boss, and keep on saying "we better do this or else Da Boss will punish us!", but Da Boss never spends more than 5 minutes in the actual game, and is really more of a background element that motivates and pushes the PCs along. In the end the main focus is still on the soldiers, and the entire game still works largely like a typical party game.

nyjastul69
2016-01-30, 08:03 AM
The Adventures of Indiana Jones RPG is another game with a central protagonist and sidekick characters. I don't recall it being very popular. Really, who wants to be Willie Scott? Short Round is probably OK though. The game is so focused on using the pregen characters that there aren't even character creation rules in the core game. They were released as an accessory about a year later. IIRC though, the system is pretty solid. I'll have to pull mine off the shelf and check it out again.

Murk
2016-01-30, 08:57 AM
I think it's quite possible. The "main character" isn't always the strongest, nor, actually, the most important. Harry Potter is clearly the main character of his series, but we all know it's actually Hermione who gets **** done. In a way, one could call Frodo the main character of LotR, but it's other people who wage wars.
Someone can be the main character, the leading figure, the character that the story revolves around, while still being on the same level as side characters. Possibly even as a "coat rack" for other, more interesting characters to be hung on.

I think it might even be best if this "main character" was an NPC. Say, the heroic prince, the one who drives the story but who is kind of a wuss; while the story revolves around him, it is quite clearly the players who actually do stuff.

Ashtagon
2016-01-30, 12:25 PM
I think it might even be best if this "main character" was an NPC. Say, the heroic prince, the one who drives the story but who is kind of a wuss; while the story revolves around him, it is quite clearly the players who actually do stuff.

What you're describing is a DMPC. That can sometimes work if don't right (but usually isn't). This thread is about having a PC as that superstar character.

Grod_The_Giant
2016-01-30, 02:01 PM
What you're describing is a DMPC. That can sometimes work if don't right (but usually isn't). This thread is about having a PC as that superstar character.
Not necessarily-- the OP was just asking about "one main character" games, and having the NPC be the main character is an easy way to do it. To make it a bit more interesting, you might put in some sort of metagame control system: spend hero points to have him sweep in and deus ex machina a scene, to have him make a decision you approve of, stuff like that. To take the Doctor Who comparison a bit farther, you spend most of the game running around with the players (Companions) trying to earn hero points by surviving chase scenes, talking to NPCs, uncovering clues and stuff with the Doctor hangs around and provides goofy/witty/snarky commentary, and then at the climax they "cash in" and he enacts some convenient solution.

For a player as the main character? As long as he's not more powerful than his allies, I think it could work in any system. You just need a good group who's all on-board with the idea. There often winds up being an unofficial party leader anyway, based on face skills if nothing else.

JoeJ
2016-01-30, 02:30 PM
For a player as the main character? As long as he's not more powerful than his allies, I think it could work in any system. You just need a good group who's all on-board with the idea. There often winds up being an unofficial party leader anyway, based on face skills if nothing else.

Having one PC that's vastly more powerful than the others isn't necessarily unworkable. Look at the Smallville RPG, for example.

Magic Myrmidon
2016-01-30, 09:17 PM
Actually, the idea of an RPG that's built explicitly for solo campaigns is an interesting one. I'm not sure how it would be different from a normal one, though.

Milo v3
2016-01-30, 09:22 PM
Actually, the idea of an RPG that's built explicitly for solo campaigns is an interesting one. I'm not sure how it would be different from a normal one, though.

I'm pretty sure Mummy the Curse is made for solo campaigns.

GnollOfErathis
2016-01-30, 09:30 PM
I was in a D&D 3.0 game where, after a few adventures, we discovered that our monk's monastery had been destroyed, and unbeknownst to him, it had been guarding an item associated with the maguffin which could destroy the campaign's Dark Lord. So the monk became the guardian of that item, and we went along to help him out. Being a monk, he didn't overshadow the rest of us mechanically, and he was a good player who could handle the leadership role.

I think the DM used the early adventures to scope out the players, and picked the one who could play the part without alienating the rest of us.

goto124
2016-01-30, 10:25 PM
Actually, the idea of an RPG that's built explicitly for solo campaigns is an interesting one. I'm not sure how it would be different from a normal one, though.

Might want to look at single-player computer games.

The one character would have to be able to handle a lot of things and carry its own weight, so that character would need a greater variety of skills (like a bard). Puzzles would have to be made easier, since there's only one mind to solve it instead of 5 or so. Oh, and due to action economy, many fights would be easier and have fewer enemies.

Knaight
2016-01-31, 04:03 AM
I'm thinking that one way to make this work is to restructure a bit further back. The one GM + some number of players style of RPG is traditional and predominant, but there have been games outside that mold that have worked. There are workable GMless games, games where the GM duties get split by what's going on, and other such things. However part of what makes the one GM + some number of players style work is that the one person who is best suited to handling the bulk of the game can do so, while everyone else does less.

So, what about reversing that? If there's one main character and the game is character focused, the person who would be most relevant is whoever is playing that one main character. What if everyone else had a GM styled role, but with the GM duties partitioned a bit. Maybe one person focuses on introducing new characters, from the big ones to the bits, and plays all new characters for their first few scenes, before they pass to being widely used. Maybe the partial-GMs split up based on what kind of scene is currently occurring, passing the torch around as the main character gets involved with different things. Maybe there's a structure where there is still some sort of party setup, the members other than the protagonist rotate heavily, and there's people working with several characters in that pool, other people with other NPCs, and someone who handles everything that isn't a character.

Some of these ideas are going to work better than others, but the point is that a system where there is a player + some number of partial-GMs could potentially work really well for this, with the partitioning of the GM role being absolutely critical in how well it works.

JustIgnoreMe
2016-01-31, 06:12 AM
Ars Magica calls this Troupe Play. The term is also used for sharing GM duties.

In AM the idea is everyone has a Wizard, a Companion, and some Grogs. The Wizard has the cosmic power but outside of a magical situation he's a fish out of water. A Companion would be someone more suited for what we think of as adventuring, but with no magical powers and a very tight focus. Grogs are like hirelings and servants, low powered but with useful skills and abilities.

The idea is that each session one player plays their Wizard and the other players assemble a supporting team from their other characters.

Basically: the idea works, if everyone has multiple characters.

valadil
2016-01-31, 06:39 AM
Back in the 1980s, there was an RPG made based around the TV series Doctor Who (insanely popular at the time). The RPG played up to the Doctor being the star of the story. I leave determining the popularity of this RPG as an exercise for the dedicated student.

I've heard about a Doctor Who game. No idea if it's the same one. The one that was described to me had the players taking turns playing The Doctor for a session each, and they played the companions the rest of the time. It sounded like a positive experience, but I'm pretty sure the person telling me about it was biased towards anything that let him be The Doctor.

I could see that approach working in another RPG. I could also see a spotlight approach working, where players don't change characters but the focus changes each session. Before the terrible ending, I enjoyed watching Lost. One of the things that was fun was how each episode focused on a different character and revealed a little more of their background. I don't see why that couldn't work in an adventuring party too.

Pluto!
2016-01-31, 11:31 AM
Everyone is John? >_>

My Life With Master is pretty cool, and is entirely about playing the sidekicks of the central character driving the plot. But players collaboratively make that central character. And there are some other pretty out-there game design elements going around in it.

Edit: But for a wargamey hack and slash RPG, I really don't get the point. There's a reason D&D dropped its tactical liason player role.

Jormengand
2016-01-31, 04:41 PM
Play a game like Fields of Blood or SIFRP and have one player be the ruler and the others be the troop commanders on the ground who are actually moving troops around?

Fable Wright
2016-01-31, 05:39 PM
I haven't read the previous discussion, but I have seen an RPG work with main characters. Just in a very different way you describe.

Take my current D&D group. One of the characters showed up playing a young Paladin girl, wide-eyed and idealistic, and a lot of the characters naturally formed around her to take on roles. There was the significantly-more-capable mentor figure Druid, the jerk-with-a-heart-of-pyrite thief that her presence was beginning to redeem, the official Paladin that was teaching her the official ropes, the macguffin child the party is adventuring with, and the rival and far more aggressive Cleric. This is a dynamic that works, because each of the characters gets to shine and be unique and equal to, if not more capable than, the central hero figure.

I think basing a 'main character' RPG system around that would work, as long as the rest of the characters aren't tagalongs. Sure, one person gets to be the chosen one and all that, but really, I can personally have a lot of fun as Obi-Wan Kenobi, my friend here would love a chance to be Han Solo, and Greg from accounting thinks it would be fun to play R2D2. Let Luke have all of his jedi mysticism and more dramatic levelup bonuses at the cost of lower starting stats, I want to have fun as a mundane smuggler that's really useful all game. I realize that a lot of star wars RPGs have balance problems from Jedi, but if you build that into the system and give other players a chance to shine brighter early on, you could have a very good system in there that focuses around the Chosen One but is fun for everyone around him, too.

nedz
2016-01-31, 06:42 PM
I ran a military fantasy style 3.5 game a few years back. On of the PC's took leadership - so he got promoted to lieutenant. So, nominally, he was in command of the unit party. In actual play this was pretty irrelevant but it did frame the roleplay a little in that he was given the mission briefings from the Brigadier. Other than having the Leadership feat he was no more powerful per sea.

Actana
2016-02-01, 10:24 AM
An example where it could work well is a setup similar to what they have in Avatar: The Last Airbender. Aang is pretty much the "main character" of the show, with the overarching plot focusing around him (what with Aang being the Avatar and all). Yet none of the group lack focus and characterization, and many people prefer the rest of the main cast to Aang. Each of them bring certain qualities into the game and support the story in their own way. Heck, the show starts with the focus on Katara and Sokka.

There is of course the very valid arguments of who is the main character of the show and whether or not the show has multiple main characters, but if I had to give the title of main character to anyone it would be Aang. But that doesn't detract from the rest of the cast, and in many ways the roles complement each other.

CharonsHelper
2016-02-01, 11:04 AM
An example where it could work well is a setup similar to what they have in Avatar: The Last Airbender. Aang is pretty much the "main character" of the show, with the overarching plot focusing around him (what with Aang being the Avatar and all). Yet none of the group lack focus and characterization, and many people prefer the rest of the main cast to Aang. Each of them bring certain qualities into the game and support the story in their own way. Heck, the show starts with the focus on Katara and Sokka.

There is of course the very valid arguments of who is the main character of the show and whether or not the show has multiple main characters, but if I had to give the title of main character to anyone it would be Aang. But that doesn't detract from the rest of the cast, and in many ways the roles complement each other.

That's actually a pretty good example of the vibe that I was thinking you could do with such a system. Aang is definitely the most powerful of the group, but that doesn't keep the rest of them from helping out, and Aang couldn't accomplish everything by himself. The focus of the plot is Aang, but the other characters take part. However, everyone - ally & enemy - generally think of them as The Avatar's group.

The question is - would players be okay with playing Sokka/Katara to Aang's Avatar character? It sounds like some people would be VERY against it, but others would be okay with it if Aang is being played by a good player. It would definitely be a bit of a niche system... but, most systems are.

Frozen_Feet
2016-02-01, 11:48 AM
Remember: there are still people who think fantasy RPGs are a form of Devil worship.

Worrying about how some people might be against the idea is not conductive to anything. Make the game first, and the present it to people who actually understand what it's trying to do - ie. people who love that show and its characters.

Lorsa
2016-02-02, 04:55 AM
There is a problemswith having your story revolve around one character, namely, what happens when they die?

In Dr. Who this is already taken care of, as he is clearly immortal, but in general having one PC with a plot-armor whereas the others do not is not fun.

Ask yourself how you would feel playing the side-kick in such a group. IF the answer is "I wouldn't mind", then you could start looking into this idea. Most people in RPGs do like to feel that it's a shared experience though, so this type of project is very sensitive to group dynamic issues. Even more so than usual, which means the chances for failure are a bit too high for my tastes.

If you do manage to get a group together and play, and they're all equally happy, please let us know. :smallsmile:

Mutazoia
2016-02-02, 05:18 AM
I've heard about a Doctor Who game. No idea if it's the same one. The one that was described to me had the players taking turns playing The Doctor for a session each, and they played the companions the rest of the time. It sounded like a positive experience, but I'm pretty sure the person telling me about it was biased towards anything that let him be The Doctor.

I could see that approach working in another RPG. I could also see a spotlight approach working, where players don't change characters but the focus changes each session. Before the terrible ending, I enjoyed watching Lost. One of the things that was fun was how each episode focused on a different character and revealed a little more of their background. I don't see why that couldn't work in an adventuring party too.

The 80's game in question was by FASA. One player was "a Time Lord" and the other(s) were companions. Not really much of a "main character" concept as you would think.

Back to the OP:

As others have said, this concept could work, if the entire party agreed to it and built characters around this concept, but honestly, having a "main character" really only works in books and movies/TV, where the reader/viewer gets to "identify" with the main character, putting themselves in their shoes. Which is why some people find books that keep switching off main characters through out the story rather disjointed and hard to read...just as you get invested in a character, POOF they're gone. (Not to be confused with telling parts of a story from a particular character's point of view occasionally.)

If you are planning on using your gaming group to "write" a novel for you, using this format, make sure everybody agree's and gets some credit.

Actana
2016-02-02, 05:31 AM
There is a problemswith having your story revolve around one character, namely, what happens when they die?

In Dr. Who this is already taken care of, as he is clearly immortal, but in general having one PC with a plot-armor whereas the others do not is not fun.

Any game that is planning on featuring a sort of "main character" in its story should also account for what happens if they die. In that case, the story should take the angle of "what now when the main character is dead?" and go with that. If the character was some sort of chosen savior (which, mind you, is only a single type of "main character"), what are the consequences of them dying? How does the world react and what will everyone do now that there is no savior anymore? There's no real end to any story in RPGs, they merely evolve in different ways.

noob
2016-02-02, 06:03 AM
Well I remember when I played dnd I essentially followed the group leader and did everything he asked me to do.
So it could work if you find multiple boring humans like me.

Fearan
2016-02-02, 06:15 AM
I'm actually surprised, no one have mentioned Rogue Trader yet. Okay, mechanically all characters are build on a same xp budget, some of them get tons of niche goodies like the Explorator or the Astropath, but in the end - it's always about the Rogue Trader himself - it's his ship, his warrant of trade which allows the party to give the finger to the Imperium's authorities and ultimately, his decision on what to do and who to kill. I've both played and GM-ed Rogue trader and all I had to do for it to work, is to make sure, that everybody understands and agrees, that this is mainly the RT's game. And it worked.

goto124
2016-02-02, 06:33 AM
Well I remember when I played dnd I essentially followed the group leader and did everything he asked me to do.
So it could work if you find multiple boring humans like me.

*points at your name*
*runs away, laughing childishly*

wumpus
2016-02-02, 02:26 PM
Remember: there are still people who think fantasy RPGs are a form of Devil worship.

The problem isn't what people (not playing) will think of a game with a "main character", the problem is why you would set things up like this. Presumably it would involve literary tradition (as far as the reason why). This then leads to multiple problems.

"Main Character" is a NPC/DMPC: Obviously works with the "high school harem comedy" as the main character is supposed to be a Marty Stew (i.e. nobody cares if the players don't see MS as all that cool. The characters assume he is by fiat).

Main character is a NPC: Presumably "main character" is really a macguffin: a small child "heir to the throne" will do, or otherwise not expected to show any leadership.

Main character is a PC: er, why? Main character has "sleeping with the DM" or "offspring of the DM" (with presumably adult other players?) feats?

* Note: About "Devils and dungeons and dragons" bit. My old junior high school had a fairly active RPG club that was shut down after I left '83?. I think a local Presbyterian** minister was involved. No idea if he had any contact with the local Methodist minister (whose son played in the group).
** normally Presbyterians are pretty sane (at least theologically)

Milo v3
2016-02-02, 05:23 PM
In my rise of the runelord game, one of the players is effectively the main character.

Cluedrew
2016-02-02, 05:57 PM
Main character is a PC: er, why? Main character has "sleeping with the DM" or "offspring of the DM" (with presumably adult other players?) feats?Interesting story mostly.

No really, there are a great many stories out there and in an role-playing game setting it makes sense to have mechanics to support them. Now there are a variety of "main character" archetypes and you would probably need a different mechanics for each one.

An interesting one would be the main character as the narrator. That is to say the main character isn't the hero, just someone who watches the hero and talks about it. In some extreme cases this is the only thing that makes the main character important. In this sort of game the main character might very well have be the weakest player character, but have some meta-resource to boost the other players. That might be a good way to handle DMPCs, although I'll probably never have the chance to play it.

Jay R
2016-02-03, 10:49 AM
It depends on the players.

If they are jealous of attention, then no, I don't recommend it. But if they are all happy in a game in which they all have fun stuff to do, then there's nothing wrong with a quest centering on a particular character.

Two concerns:

1. The quest should be something that needs to be completed even if that character dies. When Frodo is believed to be dead, Sam takes the Ring to finish the quest. When Harry Potter is believed to be dead, Neville says that they must still fight Voldemort. Even without Moses, they still go on to the Promised Land. Julius Caesar dies halfway through The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. The story doesn't end when Ned Stark dies.

2. Each character must have important things to do during the adventure, whether it's about that character or not. The plot can be about D'Artagnan, but the other musketeers should get just as much fighting, and Athos's backstory with Milady can be important. Robin Hood can be the leader, but Little John and Friar Tuck need to take an active role. Even if it's Buzz and Woody's story, the guy playing Mr. Potato Head needs to be involved.

AMFV
2016-02-03, 08:11 PM
One way this could work is if the players have different "win" conditions. For example if you have the one main character and the other characters, and they gain experience in a different way. The scrappy character would get points for backing the hero up, rather than for directly solving challenges. A comic relief character might gain experience for lightening the mood. This would mean that there would be different incentives for each player, and you could have the spotlight balanced around the party dynamics rather than around the success of the "Main Character"

TheYell
2016-02-03, 10:41 PM
It could work with sufficiently mature players.

One thing that comes to mind is a journey campaign, such as a sea voyage. The party is together until they reach the final port, then the Main Character continues by land with a new party of companions. I know gamers who might enjoy that just to experiment with archetypes.

solidork
2016-02-03, 11:46 PM
That's actually a pretty good example of the vibe that I was thinking you could do with such a system. Aang is definitely the most powerful of the group, but that doesn't keep the rest of them from helping out, and Aang couldn't accomplish everything by himself. The focus of the plot is Aang, but the other characters take part. However, everyone - ally & enemy - generally think of them as The Avatar's group.

The question is - would players be okay with playing Sokka/Katara to Aang's Avatar character? It sounds like some people would be VERY against it, but others would be okay with it if Aang is being played by a good player. It would definitely be a bit of a niche system... but, most systems are.

The thing is, and I think you see this in normal D&D games, there are episodes where the main character is clearly not Aang. Think about when Sokka learns to use a sword, or when Katara learns blood bending, or impersonates that spirit. When the DM takes time to make plot that intersects with your backstory or particular interests, people are usually fine with you taking the reins and making the decisions. I'd argue that in those situations your character has effectively become the main character, if only for a little while.

nedz
2016-02-04, 11:35 AM
The trouble with this concept is that I would always be tempted to subvert it: The Main character dies, turns into a villain, disappears, turns into a frog, ... Maybe it's just me, but that sounds a lot more interesting.

Jay R
2016-02-04, 11:40 AM
I could see turning it into a virtue. Do you have one player who wants to be more involved, but isn't very good at coming up with ideas? Make that player's character the main character. Now he or she is center stage, even while the others are coming up with the plans.

CharonsHelper
2016-02-04, 11:43 AM
* Note: About "Devils and dungeons and dragons" bit. My old junior high school had a fairly active RPG club that was shut down after I left '83?. I think a local Presbyterian** minister was involved. No idea if he had any contact with the local Methodist minister (whose son played in the group).
** normally Presbyterians are pretty sane (at least theologically)

Pretty much any time you get an organization of more than a couple dozen people, you'll invariably get at least a couple people who are wacko about something in the mix. :P

I try not to judge such groups by the wackos so long as those outliers are only a couple % of the group. lol

Wardog
2016-02-08, 07:06 PM
There is a problemswith having your story revolve around one character, namely, what happens when they die?


Idea: "Main Character" gets various buffs / bonuses, but if they die, its Game Over.

Players playing "Sidekicks" can roll a new character whenever they die, or if they decide their currwnt character isn't useful for the mission.

Lorsa
2016-02-09, 06:00 AM
Idea: "Main Character" gets various buffs / bonuses, but if they die, its Game Over.

Players playing "Sidekicks" can roll a new character whenever they die, or if they decide their currwnt character isn't useful for the mission.

Yes, that is the consequence of having a "main character", and therein lies the problem. The sidekick players have less incentive to really care about their character(s), whereas the main player will feel important for the whole campaign. It's fine if you are the sort of person who don't like to invest anything into the character you are playing, but I've found most people enjoy the game more when they do.

Comet
2016-02-09, 06:43 AM
Idea: "Main Character" gets various buffs / bonuses, but if they die, its Game Over.

Players playing "Sidekicks" can roll a new character whenever they die, or if they decide their currwnt character isn't useful for the mission.

This could work very well, particularly if you have one player who is all about writing a dozen pages of backstory while getting super attached to a particular character and then a bunch of players who are more about improvisation, exploring the world and reinventing their playstyle as they go. Everyone gets what they want.

AMFV
2016-02-09, 08:24 AM
Yes, that is the consequence of having a "main character", and therein lies the problem. The sidekick players have less incentive to really care about their character(s), whereas the main player will feel important for the whole campaign. It's fine if you are the sort of person who don't like to invest anything into the character you are playing, but I've found most people enjoy the game more when they do.

It's why you incentivize the sidekicks differently. As I suggested, you give them experience and character development for being good sidekicks rather than for solving challenges. This encourages their development. Just because somebody is comic relief doesn't mean they are unimportant to the story.

Siegemonkeys
2016-02-09, 08:45 PM
Honestly, I don't really think a game with a "main character" would work out unless it's a solo game. If it's a play-by-post game you could probably pull it off by having the party in the same world but in different locations doing their own thing, effectively making them all the main characters of their own story, but in a normal game I just don't think it'd work. Everyone wants some time in the spotlight, and it gets really old really fast if the spotlight is always centered on one character without giving the other characters their own chances to shine.

Besides, what happens if the party's "main character" dies? Then everything's been for nothing and absolutely no one is satisfied, not the main character's player or the players that have been pushed to the sidelines this whole time.

Milo v3
2016-02-09, 08:50 PM
Everyone wants some time in the spotlight, and it gets really old really fast if the spotlight is always centered on one character without giving the other characters their own chances to shine.
Nah. Some people don't care. In my current Rise of the Runelord game, one character is definitely the Main Character but the others have been fine with their levels of spot-light.