Viewpoint "No Main Characters" or "Everyone is a Main Character of their own Story"?

[Crow]

You know, I noticed two philosophies when people talk about how they manage characters in RPs, and the former is generally more prominent.

Let's cut to the chase, no fancy opening. Which do you practice? If you are vehemently against the other, why so?

 

[Onmyoji]

Everyone is a main character of their own story.
It's somewhat similar to the approach MMORPGs and open-world games are having. and interestingly enough, those games sprouted quite a lot of roleplayers.
Such approach gives enough freedom for self expression.

But on the grand scale of things, when everyone is the main character then no one is. So each player has their own story but it doesn't contradict that their personal stories can form up something bigger in a group roleplay.

 

[Owlbear]

I don't really see the difference between the two options.

I mean, "everyone is the main character of their own story" sort of implies that is no real main character.

 

[Idea]

I think it's highly roleplay-dependent. For the most part I agree with Owlbear on this, there isn't much of a distinction. However, I do think they take it a bit too far in saying "you are the main character of your own story" implies there being no main character, specifically because the NPCs are as affected by this principle as player characters.

Player characters are more likely to get plot armor, or to be put at the forefront of things (sometimes even when it doesn't make any sense). So the difference between "we're all main characters" and "no one is a main character" is really a question of whether the characters are forefront in a story the "metaphysical camera" is focused on (if the story is about a war, the characters being an elite group or somehow important to the war for instance) or the focus of the "metaphysical camera" is on the characters (for instance, a slice of life about a bunch of normal students). Are the characters just another part of the world we happen to be focusing on, are the characters actively taking the spotlight from a more macro perspective?

It's something that depends heavily on the kind of roleplays one participates in and makes. My 1x1s tend to have more "all the PCs are main characters" type stories because it's a more controlled environment, while groups tend to have a more "no one is a main character" vibe.

Also potentially relevant, I roleplay in first person because I always write in my own character's perspective. I find that to be far more immersive. So even in a story with a more "no one is the main character" type of thematic, the way I write them is more within the "everyone is the main character of their own story" kind of mindset- at least by the description. After all, the character will perceive the world relative to themselves first and foremost. Even when, from an outside perspective, that would be silly or uncalled for.

 

[Idea]

Oh, and I would also like to bring up: While it's not as predominant as the two aforementioned options, I do think a well-coordinated group could make a great RP even with well-defined main character(s) from within the group itself. A lot of people actually seem to enjoy being the support, if of course this doesn't mean they loose the ability to themselves stand out, be impressive and get attention. When one person wants to do it and no one else this can become rather rude very quickly, but I think it could be quite quirky and fun, especially among groups that have more self-control and enjoy playing around with tropes.

 

[Jannah]

If by main character you mean the character that the story is primarily driven by then, yes every story has at least one of those. That being said, in my own writing I like to give even minor side characters unique and memorable personalities. I like everyone to be able to stand out and hold their own in whichever part of the story they're in. Even if it's a character who only shows up in one or two scenes I like their presence to be remembered and somehow important to the overall story arc.

 

[Jet]

Everyone having a protag in their own story (having the option at least) is vastly superior than everyone being a side character, with the main character being the plot.

Everyone having a protag gets people more invested in the RP; it's more satisfying to write.

The key to this is that protags need strong motivations, while side characters don't need them. It can be very difficult to come up with a protag-level motivation in some settings. Other settings are much more conducive; my RP is a good example (patting myself on the back I know). Its premise is very simple, there's a device out there that grants wishes, and the group wants to find it. It's very easy to plug a protag backstory & motivation into that premise. Then my story (finding the device) becomes the logical extension of their backstory and motivation.

But there are other universes where it's much harder. I was in a persona RP where this was a problem, because my characters didn't even know the persona universe existed. It was impossible to link my character to the plot because my characters had never been into the spirit realm before. There was no way my characters could operate as protagonists within the story, because their backstories and goals were separate.

Sure they could have protag story arcs outside the plot, but in the context of the plot they would be side characters. That sucked the fun from the RP and was one reason I bailed.

 

[grudge]

Personally I think its a very case by case basis, all depending on the skills of the players and the ability of the people running it. In a 1x1, people being 'main characters' makes sense, and I can't really think of any time where that's really an issue. But when it comes to group roleplays, I think having people who are clearly the main focus can certainly be an issue, but I don't think its completely bad. 'Main Characters' can offer a strong center point to progress the story if they have that correct dynamic for it. This definitely shouldn't overshadow other peoples characters, time should be taken where everyone can have their own critical moments, and I think open discussion is a big part of that. Personally I don't think playing a character that takes more of a supporting role is an issue, so long as the character that is the focus at the time offers a nice window to present my own character. Good interactions and chemistry help that a lot, and having moments where I can supplement their weaknesses and vice versa can lead to things still being fulfilling even if there isn't much focus at the time.

'Everyone is the Main Character' mindset is also great as well, everyone being treated as equal is a great standard, but its also possible that it can lead to less cohesion trying to give fair representation to all characters. Once again I think it all comes down to skill and chemistry between the players and characters.

Tl ; DR: It's really case by case, but I don't mind either on paper.

 

[FloofWhispers]

I believe that everyone is the main character of their own story, just like how everyone in real life has their own past and future. You can't dictate if someone is evil or good, since you cannot know their past and feelings. Everyone has a story to tell, even if they say nothing.

 

[ChasmOfOrganicMatter]

I prefer everyone being the mainc haracter as I do not like the feeling of people in my RP's feeling like they're being cast into the side character role without their prior consultation.

 

[Shiyonichi]

In my experience, in group rps there are mutiple Main Characters, it’s rarely just one and it usually due to the type of players.

More proactive players usually push the plot along, making their characters more of the Main Characters. So it’s not really a case of there is no Main Character or everyone is a Main Character, but more of every character can become a Main Character, but the player needs to make them a main character.

 

[yutohase]

I, admittedly, have a few struggles with Main Character Syndrome, always trying to put myself at the forefront of an RP instance or whatever, but honestly, if I had a choice, instead of stepping back and forcing myself to be a side character, I'd rather bring everyone along on the Main Character journey with me. Honestly, as someone who got started into this thing with TTRPG's, specifically D&D 5e, it's more satisfying to have the players be the main characters and for us to get the action going than to have the plot drag us along. If at the end of the day, I'm just a bystander to the greater story, I am unsatisfied. I want to contribute, to make this story exciting in my own way. So I do not believe that "there is no main character" is the way to approach it, but that "everyone is the main character in their own story" is.

Because we don't view our own lives through the third person. We live in the first person, taking charge of our actions, making our own stories happen, right in front of our eyes. Why would we force our characters to have to live passively when we have never experienced that ourselves? Give them some action. Make them the main character, like we are the main characters of our own lives.

 

[nondescriptname655433788]

I gotta admit, I don't mind being a side character in RP. It feels good to just be apart of the background noise and get supported by someone who's more powerful/OP. It's why I specify I don't mind other people's characters being OP in 1x1s so long as I am still included in some form, like their character needing emotional support at times or something. I also love playing NPCs, I think there's nothing wrong with having main characters in RP. At the same time, having no one be the MC is also alright but you need to have someone leading the plot for that to work, which births an MC consequentially. Having a leader/leaders is just natural in most scenarios.

 

[Sara Sidereal]

You know, I noticed two philosophies when people talk about how they manage characters in RPs, and the former is generally more prominent.

Let's cut to the chase, no fancy opening. Which do you practice? If you are vehemently against the other, why so?

I don't really have a philosophy, I just try to have fun; I usually prefer to play supporting characters

 

[Viper]

I greatly enjoy harem RPs, with or without romance. By this I mean that I play 5 characters with a partner who plays only 1 (5x1). Although this is a different circumstance than I'd guess you were imagining, in these circumstances, my partner's character is for sure the main character. The entire plot revolves around them, while MC's act as support, antagonists, or romantic interests.

I've done classic 1x1 Rps where I would still say that my partner's character was the main character, and it can be perfectly fun and fine as long as everyone who comes into it knows what to expect from day one.

You just need the right plot built to have a main character, a partner who respects you, and a partner who knows that your character(s) still matter. OOC conversation is a must since the plot should still be cooperative even if there is a main character. It can be super fun since it results in a more TV-like RP!

 

[Pilgrim59]

You know, I noticed two philosophies when people talk about how they manage characters in RPs, and the former is generally more prominent.

Let's cut to the chase, no fancy opening. Which do you practice? If you are vehemently against the other, why so?

A non-essential character within a story or world CAN become a "main character" if enough attentions are given to them. The general perception of "main characters", as I've come to conclude in my own RP experience, revolves around a certain attention-threshold. In a way, both statements that you have laid out have their own justifications. It all depends on how much attention is given to these "characters."

Say, if there are NO characters, only a descriptive scene of a place in time. A tree may become a "main character" inadvertently, should its existence overwhelm every other objects within its subjective narrative and purpose. Thus, I must stand on my personal belief that anyone can be a main character. This is especially true when you're writing with others, as others above me have stated.

 

[nickatknight]

I like the philosophy that everyone is (or at least can be) a main character, but also think that (GOOD) main characters are rarely ‘chosen’- they just happen to emerge naturally in the course of an rp.

I have a friend I’ve been rolepalying with for years. In any given universe we each may have 10-20 characters. We never go into it with the mentality that “so and so” is the main character, but when we look back on things later, there is an obvious character who’s taken center stage. Sometimes the MCs are just the ones we had the most muse for. Other times its the ones whose backstories ended up making them the most relevant to the direction the plot went. Sometimes a random arbitrary decision they make is what makes them suddenly super important. And sometimes the main character will change half way through!

When writing with many partners in one play, I find the MCs are usually the characters played by members who 1. Are willing to help progress the plot, and 2. have forced unique relationships with most if not all of the characters around them. Players who pop on infrequently and don’t plot with others characters are often insignificant when things start happening, but if your character always around and known by everyone, there’s a good chance someone else is already thinking about what you’re going to do and setting you up.

 

[The Great Sage]

If by main character you mean the character that the story is primarily driven by then, yes every story has at least one of those.

I think Jannah is right. Every narrative must have a protagonist or else the plot will certainly fizzle. People have been writing stories for 3000 years now, and for that ENTIRE time authors have understood that good storytelling must have structure.

It's like building a house: you must start by looking at the blueprints and building a solid foundation. You can probably get away with not doing doing so, at least for a time, but if you ignore the rules of structure and foundation your house will not be as stable, sound or safe as your neighbor's, and over time that will start to show.

 

[Bealocwealm]

Both.

"No Main Characters" is about not making your character clearly superior to other chars -- not making everyone around you feel like they shouldn't have shown up, not making your char The Chosen One and everyone else Their Sidekicks or Their Romaenc Paertner. It's essential to TTRPG as well as most RP. When your char demands the spotlight at all times, and the world seems to revolve around the one char, that's what "No Main Characters" was designed around. There are ways to use the tropes No Main Characters refers to in a manner that *doesn't* reduce the rest of the cast to background -- see Captain Carrot from Discworld -- but the people who need to hear "No Main Characters" aren't the people who use these tropes responsibly, by and large.

"Everyone's The Main Character Of Their Own Story" is, on the surface, the opposite, because it treats the problem at the other pole -- the anti-sue, the char who is trying so hard not to be the Main Character that they blend seamlessly in the background and can't be meaningfully interacted with. They might as well be a nameless NPC for all the development that's happened, because their player is trying their damndest Not to shine lest they Outshine. This maxim gives a shy player explicit permission to play a person the way people experience themselves, as the main character of their own story, and therefore to manifest a character who feels solid and that everyone can actually experience -- rather than a foil, a prop, or a sidekick.