Primary Character RPs

[Bone2pick]

Some complaints surfaced in another thread about primary GM characters and I wanted to dig deeper on that. I'm referring to RPs where the GM's character takes the central role in the narrative conflict. An example could be an RP inspired by Arthurian Legend: a single magic sword is pulled by the GM's character, who is thereby divinely chosen to rule a kingdom. Other players would be his or her royal knights, who would obviously help defend the GM's claim to the throne.


Is there a problem with that scenario? I understand why it wouldn't be appealing to everyone, but I don't view that premise as an inherently lesser quality RP. Imo, it's just a different flavor. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

 

[Mordecai]

Like you, I understand why it wouldn't be appealing to everyone; however, I have no issues with it so long as the GM clearly states in the interest check and/or the summary of the roleplay what is going to be happening. As long as the roleplayers know what they will be getting into and are happy with it, I don't see it as being a problem. That said, I have seen many roleplays where the GM simply fails to mention the fact that it will be his or her character ascending to the throne (using your example), and suddenly you have a bunch of roleplayers who are peeved now that their characters are subjects.


For me personally, I don't mind if the GM plays a character in the storyline, so long as they continue to offer adequate support and guidance to the roleplayers and storyline; however, I have a hard time staying interested in a storyline where the GM's character is the centre of the universe and all of the other character storylines revolve around the GM's character. Again, that may just be my preference. c:

 

[Ixacise]

In short:


Cuz it's fucking boring. If you want to make story with only one character being of utmost importance and everything ultimately revolving around him. You go write a story.


What you don't do is try and rope players into making characters who will be forever under the character's shadow and every action will ultimately be meaningless save for propelling said character forward in the story. Players are players, not your jury rigged Holodeck AI stand-in to handle other characters you're too lazy to bother writing.


Sure you could do it but it would require a high amount of organization rather dropping it on some randos and wrangling everyone into the same wavelength. And even then it would be a colossal pain in the ass as ultimately it's counterproductive as you got the player's sense of agency and importance being pitted against the character's need to be active so they can actually you know be a main character. And you needing to make your players care more about your character than the ones they made which will naturally have more investment in.


Like the video game equivalent would be the bullshit Team-5 did in White Knight Chronicles where you start off the game with a character creation screen complete with DLC cosmetic items which would imply to any sane rational being that your dude is gonna be pretty important. Only to have the game not only sideline you from the story like 15 minutes into the game as you cease being relevant outside of being hyper competent in combat with everything revolving around the NPCs and also withholding your character's access to the neato robo-knight transformation gimmick until late game in the fucking sequel via a semi-obscure sidequest.

real fucking fun!


Like there's a reason people get cagey around GMPCs .

 

[Bone2pick]

Cuz it's fucking boring. If you want to make story with only one character being of utmost importance and everything ultimately revolving around him. You go write story.

If I created a GM primary character RP, like I was the captain of a Star Trek ship, and you said "go write story", couldn't I just respond with "go RP somewhere else"?


I'm not sure "go write story" holds up. I certainly wouldn't feel compelled to.

 

[Grey]

I wouldn't consider the captain of a ship the primary character, necessarily. Depending on how much you want to emphasize the command crew's impact on the running of the ship or plot.


I dunno, I feel like having a central protagonist in the form of a GMPC defeats the whole point of roleplaying. I pers'nally would just go and write some fiction centered on that character.


But that's probably illustrative of our divide in attitudes (that I treat roleplaying as a game rather than a serious literary exercise).

 

[Ixacise]

Well thing is you're a on roleplay site made for roleplaying with other people.


Now if you're wanting a place to write your story about your dude and share it you have:


https://www.rpnation.com/forums/prose-poems.127/


Or perhaps if wanting more dedication towards the topic: http://figment.com/


Also your Trek Captain example doesn't fit with the thread's topic, which is about a roleplay with a Main Character. The captains while being a focal point due to being the authority figure weren't by any means the main character as there are plenty of episodes focusing on other characters, OG trek had the Kirk, Spoc, McCoy trio where their different outlooks would clash and have interplay which adds to the drama behind the plots. Plus Captains have to to rely on the crew to keep things running whereas a MC's competence would allow for skirting this not to mention the story structure would enable this individualism.

 

[Bone2pick]

Well thing is you're a on roleplay site made for roleplaying with other people.

Agreed. Are you suggesting that you're speaking for the interests of all other people on this site?


 

I wouldn't consider the captain of a ship the primary character, necessarily. Depending on how much you want to emphasize the command crew's impact on the running of the ship or plot.

Couldn't you make that argument for a king?

 

[Ixacise]

 

[Bone2pick]

Please show where my position moved. I'm genuinely interested.

 

[Grey]

Couldn't you make that argument for a king?

Assuming they are not empowered to do everything themselves, nor operating under some prophetic thing that makes them The Hero, sure. Unless the intent is to explore the jealousies and fears of the people closest to a heroic child of prophecy, in which case you're probably still better off with them as NPC.


I suppose I would need to see the idea executed skilfully, and with more purpose than 'look how cool my original character (DO NOT STEAL) is, you guys.'

 

[Bone2pick]

I suppose I would need to see the idea executed skilfully, and with more purpose than 'look how cool my original character (DO NOT STEAL) is, you guys.'

Of course the supporting characters can be more cool and/or original than the primary character. Lancelot is arguably more compelling than Arthur, and many more examples could follow.


But if it could work for a king or Star Trek Captain, then it sounds like only a supernatural element of priority (destiny) is a RP issue? I'll have to think more on that.

 

[Grey]

Well, the supernatural thing is essentially a statement of authorial intent, isn't it?


This person is the core and driving force of the narrative; their journey, development, and end dictate the story. Some players will happily have subordinate characters, but I think the idea that ultimately your character exists as a foil, support, or love interest to the protagonist just chafes.

 

[Zerohex]

I feel the issue here is that while a GMPC isn't necessarily, inherently bad, automatically putting them above the rest of the player characters is, which is what you're suggesting and what usually happens with them. No one wants to play a patsy, characters are supposed to be in a group and have a relation of equals more or less, and a GM shouldn't use being the guy in charge of the world to put their character above others. It's elevating yourself over your players and it just looks bad.


Now, for the Arthurian example. Yes, Arthur is very much central to the plot, he's the son of Uther Pendragon and the one who pulls the sword from the stone and receives Excalibur later, the Once and Future King, the man the cycle is named after. But if you read the stories, even when he's the focal point of the story Arthur isn't the only vastly important character.


Merlin, to start with, is there to counsel and work his magic for the boy, and Arthur defers to him massively. Without Merlin there'd be no Arthur. When he is but a boy he has to rely on his father's vassals and after he grows up there's knights like Lancelot, where the relationship isn't one of superiority despite their social standings and Arthur's status as the "chosen one" but of camraderie and even reliance.


As the stories go on and his adventuring days wane, Arthur settles into actually being a ruler and administrating his vast lands. The action then turns to many other characters. Lancelot, Tristan, Gawain, Gareth, Breunor La Cote Mal Taillee, Balin le Savage, Alisander le Orphelin, etc. The greatest quest of them all, the search for the Holy Grail, is seen primarily from Galahad, Percival and Bors' perspective, Arthur does not take part in it whatsoever as he must remain behind to prevent his lands from descending to chaos as his knights undertake the holy mission.


Even if you want to play an Arthurian setting, there's no real excuse for wanting to be the guy that stands over everyone else when Arthur himself is never quite presented as such when he's the focus and he's massively de-emphasized in favor of a variety of colorful characters up until the very end, where he's generally presented as being comparatively helpless without Lancelot at his side.

 

[Ixacise]

Please show where my position moved. I'm genuinely interested.

This thread is based on a thread that had comments on games that literally have a main character and why it sucks which means that this topic carries over to this thread. What you're just now suggesting are dudes that just happen to have a large amount of power and or authority to them which does not necessarily mean main characters. As countless games of D&D have reduced kings from well kings to glorified quest dispensaries.

 

[Bone2pick]

This thread is based on a thread that had comments on games that literally have a main character and why it sucks which means this thread continues this topic.

No. My only points on this subject are in this thread. Your goalpost image isn't supported.

 

[Tabby]

I think it depends entirely on context and execution - both are required for it to work, if you have either missing, it turns into the stereotypical GMPC nightmare scenario real fast.


"Central role" doesn't mean "everyone stands around taking turns talking about how great you are," or shouldn't, anyways. If you have King Arthur looking to recruit a bunch of PC knights to help him do stuff, and people sign up for it, they know up front that unless they Mordred it (is that a verb? can it be?) they aren't gonna be the King of England, but they can still do a bunch of wacky adventures and punch bad guys... or go be kawaii uguu waifus because we Fate/Stay nao. Similar concepts can fit in a variety of games - a lich recruiting adventurers in D&D for an epic (or silly!) showdown with a rival lich, a powerful Exalted god offering his patronage to a circle of Solars in return for getting to tag along, whatever. As long as players know what they're getting into, theoretically there's no real issue there. How powerful and how important this 'central' character are is simply a function of what is required of them by the plot - if the game is about being bodyguards to Alexander the Great as his army sweeps across the world, obviously the other players aren't going to be THE big cheese, but they can still be badass motherfuckers who save his ass on a regular basis when battles get rough. He's still more 'important' than them by a huge margin in terms of being the king, but if the players are having fun, what does it matter? It's not a game about high politics leaving all the PCs out, just a bromantic romp across the persian empire or whatever.


Of course, theory and implementation are two different things, and it's real easy to screw up any of the listed ideas by being some special snowflake and requiring the PCs to wait on your gilded goddess hand and foot because she's so perfect they're just there to lick her feet.


That said, context and execution are both critical issues for non-GMPC PCs as well. I suspect all of us have at least one story of another player character either not fitting the setting, or being incredibly obnoxious to deal with. That Guy stories abound in the RP/tabletop community, and far from all of them are about GMPCs. It's not limited to GMPCs by any means, though at the same time, my guess would be that with That Guy characters you can at last ask the GM for help and he might be able to fix it, whereas with GMPCs you're going up against the GM directly in trying to get them removed - you have no real option to deal with it beyond leaving if the GM isn't chill with changing things.


As with most things in roleplay, I think in the end it all comes down to communication - if you mislead prospective players about what they're in for then yeah your GMPC may be pretty That Guy-ish, but if everyone understands what they're in for, it's just a different format, no better or worse than any other. Trying to imply it's inherently 'worse' than normal RP is just silly, perhaps even intellectually dishonest - no better than claiming dice roleplaying is inherently better or worse than freeform roleplaying.


I will say this though - despite my actually quite liking the concept overall, I would be a little leery about joining a game like that unless I knew the GM, simply because (as stated previously) there's a lot of potential for shit going further south than Space Mexico.

 

[Kylesar1]

I don't really go with such an idea. If someone doesn't like the character, they're literally up against the GM, who isn't going anywhere because he's literally the main character and because it's the GM, who can remove anyone that doesn't agree.


A GM with the most powerful character doesn't sit right. I've never had a good experience with it.

 

[Blumenkranz]

There is nothing inherently wrong with having a GMPC, although depending on several factors you could go into Bad GMing territory.


Your GMPC can be a simple quest giver. He or she has money to hire the party or knowledge the PC deem relevant to their interests, and just accompanies the players to provide guidance (read as: subtle railroading) or because the quest requires them to be with the party at all times.


There is nothing wrong with this approach, as long as you understand that this GMPC type's niche is fulfilling the GM's functions in character, and therefore will probably be reduced to some sort of support character (mind you, I don't mean healing, but "money buff" supports and the like) that won't interfere much with the players' actions.


In other words, quest giver GMPC are meant to be a living plot hook, that act more as a force of cohesion between all party members rather than actually useful characters. They can be not entirely useless, but they shouldn't overshadow the players in any way, much less overpower them: if they are more powerful than anyone else, why would they need to hire a party to accompany them?


Your GMPC can be a VIP. Again, there is nothing wrong with this, or at least depending on how you put it. The GMPC may be the king of the place or something like that, and the players may be the royal knights, but that doesn't mean the GMPC has to be more important than the party. As Zerohex mentioned above, Arthur was kind of unimportant in his own legend despite being the most special snowflake ever. Why? Because his court was the one getting shit done.


Hell, let's take The Legend of Zelda as an example. It's a game named after the Princess where one of the central points of the plot is that she got kidnapped by the big bad evil guy and you have to rescue here, yet she plays a completely secondary role during all of them. Why? Because Link is the guy who is getting shit done.


The GMPC can be important to the game's setting, and it can be an important point of the plot, but it should never be the protagonist of the roleplay. That spot is reserved for the players, because they are there to play and not to read a fanfiction where they have very little say in what happens.


Let's take TLoZ as an example again. The main quest is to save Hyrule from the evil forces, not rescuing the princess. Yes, you get to rescue the princess by doing so, but that's just incidental. If the point of the game was to rescue Zelda so she could kill the evil guy while Link grabs some popcorn and watches the fight, it would not be the same, and such an ending would probably be a turn off.


Again, it's the players who must take the glory, not the GMPC. Nobody would like to waste precious time just so someone else can take credit for his or her actions, and this applies to roleplaying too. PC are meant to become more important than the VIP over time.


Your GMPC can be absurdly powerful, but you should NEVER fight alongside the players.


Let's take some roleplay using a system as an example. The players are getting their characters ready, casting their buffs, discussing the strategy and preparing the terrain to ensure victory. Enter the enemies, and you all roll for initiative, including the GMPC. GMPC has a ridiculously high bonus to initiative for some reason, so it starts first. A few pointless rolls later, all enemies are dead.


Where's the fun in this?


Your GMPC can be the big bad evil guy. Nothing wrong with this, as long as you understand that the players will fight you, and you should at least give them a chance to defeat the GMPC. If any of the aforementioned conditions is false, you are just railroading like a bastard.


In other words, your GMPC can be whoever you want it to be, as long as you understand that the players are meant to take all the glory for themselves. Because this is what a protagonist in a roleplay is: the person who gets shit done and has the power to bend the plot to its will.


If for whatever reason you don't let your players be important, then all you are doing is writing a self-congratulatory story that would be more fitting for a fanfiction if it wasn't because you have four other writers adding the fluff you are too lazy to write to it.