Does a single source of menace cheapen the game?

[ACreepierFolklaw]

I think there are countless ways to make a big bad original, or at least compelling which I think is more important.

I usually start my process as GM thinking of the villain, in the same way as a crime-writer does, and run backwards through their plan seeing what the evidence will be left behind and then leave it for my PC to see. so for me, original or not, its a somewhat necessary part of my process.

I love them; I always have and in my make believe playground games as a child I always played as big bad. I suppose DMing is for me a psychological extension of that.

There are countless ways a BB can be seriously compelling/complex, my suggestions are:
-making the BB be the damsel in distress from act1
-The BB is really an idea or a belief that can infect people meme-like (for example, I ran a game wherein the concept of prioritising peace over freedom was the big bad; and was such a seductive corrupting energy on any being who considered it that they could be distorted into a temporary BB, which could shift to another if the philosophy was communicated and accepted.)
-The BB is a creation from several NPCs based upon them creating rumours surrounding the pretend BB which eventually form some form of meta life of thier own.
-My personal favourite: BB is a future version of the hero who will eventually become evil for some as yet unknown reason.
-the BB is a TRUE BELIVER in a JUST CAUSE. (All the truly bad ones are)
-The BB does what he does to help the hero’s learn how to shine…
Etc.

 

[Fanaelialae]

My preference is for a single Big Bad. Then you can create other (Lesser) Bads who have little or nothing to do with the Big Bad. This gives the players something to focus on (an end goal), while leaving the setting fairly diverse (and leaving the potential for side plots).

You could, of course, create multiple Big Bads, but such campaigns a likelier to leave loose ends than not. I prefer my campaigns to wrap up most (if not all) loose ends.

 

[steeldragons]

Having spent a good amount of time (years) developing my campaign world/setting, multiple baddies have been created, developed, brought about by various PCs (some intentional, some unwittingly)...individuals, organizations, despots, petty criminals, monsters, extra-planar foes, and the most dangerous, MAN, of course.

Having multiple "Big Bads" occupying the world is not the same as having endless BB's that the PCs must encounter. They are simply there, going about their own business.

In a given campaign, yes I throw out a few various plots, which one(s) gets resolved or followed or impacted (intentionally or not) is up to the PCs and their actions.

But, generally speaking, there is a single, direct BBEG that the party is pitted against...a single overarching storyline that dominates the given campaign.

The world is there...the players can always come back/move on (with the same group of PCs or different/start over) to deal with another new BBEG whenever they like.

I do not think having a single overarching bad guy should, in any way, make the game less enjoyable or "cheapen" as the OP said...or more, for that matter.

It is just, usually, easier to handle/keep a focus in the game if there is a specific enemy or limited number of enemies the PCs interact with.

It's really up to what the players/PCs can handle...and how far the group gets. If they have the capacity to keep track of various evils they want to thwart, more power to 'em and I am totally willing to oblige.

I will state, that "failure is not an option" as it were. If the PCs begin a "ball rolling" on a particular plot and then go off and do other things...that plot is still rolling while they are not paying attention and they may find themselves in a world of hurt if they "forget" or ignore or keep "putting off" dealing with a certain plot. "World keeps on spinnin'" if you will.

Have fun and happy menacing.
--SD