Could an RPG system work with a 'main character'?

[Pluto!]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Mutazoia]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

In my rise of the runelord game, one of the players is effectively the main character.

[Cluedrew]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

* 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.