Is it really a bad thing to have one PC be more "important" plot wise than other PCs?
Maybe the story does start with the party protecting a prince or wizard or prostitute or whatever, and instead of having said character be an NPC, it can just be one player's character, with everyone else joining either for money, for friendship or for other personal goals.
Sure, the special NPC shouldn't get all the cool moments and favoritism, and if they die they just fucking die.
But it seems like it'd be an easy way for the GM to lessen the chances of the story diverging too much from prepared materials, while also making it easy for players to choose whether they prioritize story and roleplaying, or whether they'd rather focus on combat and gameplay stuff only, or whether they're only in the group to hang out with their irl friends.

>>95963206 (OP)
Narrative games are lame.

No, it's not a problem. And it often happens naturally. Some players are simple more proactive, make characters that have more importance in the setting, or they simply fit better in the type of adventurers and campaign you want to run.
Doesn't need to be deliberate, doesn't even need to be some kind of trying to be a special snowflake. If, for instance, in WFRP, I roll up purely by chance a character with a nobility background, then this sooner or later may come into play. Or the GM makes my character part of a bigger noble house that is engaged in local politics.

>>95963206 (OP)
Are you talking about special PCs or NPCs?

In any case, it's not bad if it jives well at your table and it suits your group's style of play. If it doesn't, it's probably bad. The biggest hurdle, in my eyes, is getting other players to care about the special (N)PC's business. Otherwise, chances are they won't be invested.

>>95963206 (OP)
Depends on the group and their OOC rapport, as well as how well you engage everyone as a whole.

>>95963206 (OP)
It is a bad thing when any kind of "plot" or "story" is put ahead of gameplay.
It works well enough when any narrative involved with the game is established in the rules the players, drip-fed not infodumped, this way the players know their characters occupy a functional world, and they know what their characters can, and eventually could, do in that world, so they can play the game uninterrupted by the inane escapades of Baroness Blowbang and the 13 Demons of Cunt that came forth from Mt. Ejaculation six centuries ago because the seven mystic anal beads broke, and now the party needs hours of exposition after every combat encounter or location change because the DM needs to force his super special magic and gods plot on someone, because he's too much of a retard to write a novel.

>>95963222
PCs

>>95963212
simulationist games are worse
but anyway either of them can have a PC (or NPC) be the reason why the campaign happens to begin with.

>>95963206 (OP)
You can make every PC important in some way, that's kind of your responsibility. If you just want to tell a story then write a book

>>95963253
>inane escapades of Baroness Blowbang and the 13 Demons of Cunt that came forth from Mt. Ejaculation six centuries ago because the seven mystic anal beads broke, and now the party needs hours of exposition after every combat encounter or location change because the DM needs to force his super special magic and gods plot on someone, because he's too much of a retard to write a novel
indeed, and that's more likely to happen if Baroness Blowbang is a DMPC rather than controlled by an actual player.

>>95963206 (OP)
Genuinely depends on the game, although that really means it depends on the people actually playing the game and how they feel. Cause I can tell you scenarios where one PC being elevated in importance over the others has indeed resulted in a lot of sour feelings, and I can tell you scenarios where someone actively seeking to be the "main character" of a game has backfired majorly and pissed a lot of people off, but I can't claim it's universally bad either since there's some parties that either don't care who's important or prefer being in the background.

I guess if you want a general "when is this sort of thing ever bad" answer, I'd point to pic related, where the efforts of one player or NPC consistently outshadow the rest, to the point of possible resentment, especially when the DM pairs that with treating the "main character" with as many compliments and favors as they please while giving overshadowed players a lack of respect by NPCs.

>>95963287
good post, and yeah, I agree, and that comic is a nice way of illustrating the potential problem.

It all comes down to DM execution and irl group dynamics. If for instance the important PC player is an obnoxious spotlight stealing fuck then everyone is gonna have a bad time. If the DM is a lazy railroading faggot who wants to force a specific story on onto the plot important PC then everyone is gonna have a bad time.

>>95963258
>thimulathionitht

>>95963206 (OP)
It's bad if your players don't like it. I suspect the majority of people will not like explicitly playing second fiddle to one of the other players.
>story diverging too much from prepared materials
The entire point of having one of the participants referee the world is so you can diverge from prepared materials. It is strange to try so hard to avoid the unique selling point of RPGs.

>>95963412
>The entire point of having one of the participants referee the world is so you can diverge from prepared materials. It is strange to try so hard to avoid the unique selling point of RPGs.
prepared materials as in what the GM had planned for their game/sessions

>It's bad if your players don't like it. I suspect the majority of people will not like explicitly playing second fiddle to one of the other players.
honestly what I've seen the most in games is that one or two players lead plot wise while the others are there either for the combat or for "shenanigans".

>>95963206 (OP)
>Is it really a bad thing to have one PC be more "important" plot wise than other PCs?
Nope. It's perfectly normal in any long-running campaign.

>>95963206 (OP)
As stop often, it depends on the players.

I once played a game inspired by the Wheel of Time which had an interesting approach: one of the PCs was the Chosen One, but it took a while to figure out which one, and the other PCs all fit cool shit too even if they weren't the Messiah.

But if one of the turns-out-you're-not-the-messiah players had thrown a hissy-fit...

>>95963426
>one or two players lead plot wise
Making it an explicit part of the game will change how players experience it.

>>95963206 (OP)
>it'd be an easy way for the GM to lessen the chances of the story diverging too much from prepared materials
Welp, it's shit then, kill it with fire I guess.

>>95963426
>honestly what I've seen the most in games is that one or two players lead plot wise while the others are there either for the combat or for "shenanigans".
As someone that has had to fill that role more than once, it's not quite the same. I chose to do it because otherwise the players would be standing around aimlessly, and from that end it's more like one person being willing to test the waters before the rest of the party jumps in. Having it enforced from the top down gets people wary on whether or not the GM will actively punish them for not following "the lead" 's whims, and pushback against what's seen as a railroading attempt will eventually become an issue that needs to be addressed.

So, yeah, even if I'd rather be the guy just there for the "shennanigans", I still help drive the plot forward cause otherwise nothing gets done. I don't do it cause I really enjoy it, and being placed in that role explicitly by a GM would not make me feel good about it.

>>95963206 (OP)
>easy way for the GM to lessen the chances of the story diverging too much from prepared materials
Just stop railroading your players and prepping scenarios that require you to railroad them

>>95963744
100% sandbox campaigns are more fun in theory than in practice.
Of course, full railroads also suck, but some coherent reason for why are the PCs adventuring together beyond "let's just loot and get rich lol" can be more satisfying than "you exist in this world, have fun".

>>95963772
None of that requires railroading, so it's not a problem.

>>95963744
>>95963772
>>95963817
Define "railroad" and "sandbox".
If your definitions aren't the same, you should stop using those terms.

>>95963206 (OP)
Lots of people ITT conflating "a player who takes it upon themselves to be the face of the party" with the actual point of the OP, which is "the GM picks one player to be the main character of his game".

You sound like someone who isn't skilled enough to make a video game or write a book but still want a soapbox to tell whatever epic and totally not generic fantasy story you want to tell. That's not how RPGs work, leave and never come back.

>>95964105
It's always a negotiation. One character makes a character who is a prince. Is it the GM or the player who makes the inheritance of the crown a central plot point?

These things are rarely one sided. Players and GMs work together to tell a story, and the GM is probably nearly-never forcing it on the player. It's a negotiation that happens naturally during any game. People take the spotlight. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, as long as the GM waves it around every once in a while.

Your attempt to draw a strict dichotomy isn't really how games play out.

>>95963206 (OP)
Its only a problem if your group thinks it is a problem, or you fail to give the other players their own time to shine as well.
If Jimmy at the table is mad because Alan's character has all of this plot bullshit that revolves around them and then Jimmys character never gets to do anything besides be a guy who fights for Alan, then you have a problem. Its perfectly reasonable to feel like they are getting cheated out of spotlight in a RPG if the story over-focuses on someone else.
But lots of players don't care, or are fine with playing characters that are more of a background role.

My rule of thumb is that even if one of the PCs is more important tot he *overplot* of the game, you should still come up with adventures or arcs that focus on other PCs as well. The fate of the world can still depend on getting the plot girl to the plot place, but that doesn't mean you can't have a revenge story focused on the barbarian in the middle.

>>95964105
>"the GM picks one player to be the main character of his game".
is it so?
>Maybe the story does start with the party protecting a prince or wizard or prostitute or whatever, and instead of having said character be an NPC, it can just be one player's character
that's more like the prince or wizard or prostitute being a living MacGuffin rather than a protagonist.

>>95963206 (OP)
I like to appoint one player as the team leader, usually the least competent player unless it wouldn't make sense for their character to be in charge. It usually results in something amusing happening.

>>95964019
Here's a good definition of railroading and explanation of why you shouldn't do it: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36900/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto

I know Powered By The Apocalypse games aren't exactly well liked on here, but it's probably worth mentioning that one of the splat books for Monster Of The Week is literally called The Chosen One, so it kinda lends itself to that if you have that one in the party.

>>95963206 (OP)
>hey guys, I'm thinking of running a game where 1 PC is a little more important than the others. Something like he's the exile prince on a quest and the rest of you will be his trusted knights. How does that sound?
>sure man, I'm cool with that.
>me too
>same. that sounds fun.
>yep, i'm keen
it's really not that complicated. anything can go wrong when playing with tards.

This is a good example of a mod thread. Note that OP asked a question with an obvious answer and didn't respond to any of the replies, the mods make these threads to make the board appear more active.

>>95970681
I think instead of a conspiracy the OP is just retarded. Hanlon's razor.

>>95970681
OP here, I replied to several of the answers, why would you assume I didn't?
I don't see any reason to keep replying anymore since it was a fairly small question.

>>95963206 (OP)
It sorta depends on your party dynamic. I'm going to have one PC in this situation in my upcoming game just because they gave me carte blanche to fuck with their amnesiac's backstory as much as I liked, so I got to tie them into the local politics and goings on and put in a bunch of plot hooks for them. Of the other two PCs one has given me some characters from their background they'd liked to have worked in someway and the third is just their character sheet. My fourth player hasn't even decided on a class. So one PC has first mover advantage, another PC has their foot in the door, and the other two don't even have backgrounds yet. I can only really work with what I have.

>>95963212
/thread

>>95974596
>he said, while bumping the thread

>>95963212
Why?

>>95963212
Sandbox games are worse though.

>>95963206 (OP)
The easiest way I've found to balance this kind of problem is to have the "less important" PCs get way more sidequest attention. It's the classic tradeoff between
>whitebread protagonist who isn't allowed to be dynamic but gets the central plot's attention
And
>side character everyone adores because they're allowed to be edgy and "cool"
Season to taste.