Does your group have a "main character"?

[Elf Witch]

I have seen this happen in games. Sometimes it is the DM for playing favorites and sometimes it is the players not giving any backgrounds or anything the DM can use.

I also think this can happen because a player picks up on the hooks the DM is dangling and runs with them.

If this is bugging you then talk to the DM but don't do it right after a game. And when you talk to him have some ideas about what you want to do. It's not good to go hey how about some story for me, ok what do you have in mind, geeI will leave it up to you.

That would drive me crazy

 

[Sidereal Knight]

Are "Jim" and the DM in love? Ask your DM about it. Perhaps "Jim" has spent and extraordinary amount of time interacting with the DM 1-on-1 via email or underneath the sheets. Either way, you are neglected and it's time to start your own group or find another if they are going to be using the game to flirt.

This made me laugh out loud. A lot Thanks for the laugh!

The idea of these two being in love or flirting with each other is absolutely outside the realm of possibility. However, they do socialize together, so it is possible that Jim has had more game-related interaction than the rest of us.

Has anyone talked to Jim about it? Your meta discussion could go a lot better if Jim was on your side.

I get the feeling that Jim either doesn't realize what's going on, or he likes the position he's in. Jim is a bit clue-light when it comes to interpersonal interaction, but he's been playing this character for 6 years or more and he's very attached to it. The jury is still out.

Come to think of it, last year when the DM needed a holiday from running the game, Jim indicated that he didn't want to play in the alternate short-term game we started. At the time I figured he didn't like the setting or the premise, but now I'm wondering if it was because he wouldn't be the center of attention.

Well, I think I'm going to draft an email to the DM. Hopefully I can present my concerns without devolving into "it's not fair!" comments.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I think situations like this can easily become self perpetuating. The Golden Child in one of my former D&D groups did pretty much all the roleplaying and was the highest level and most powerful members of the group. Any questioning of either facet of the situation was responded to by saying that Golden Child had earned it by always showing up and contributing so much. But as I observed things it became obvious that the others were capable of roleplaying more but GC and the DM had gotten so used to the default that there weren't really opertunities anymore, and in terms of commitment and showing up... GC had things come up as often as anyone else in the group that would caused a missed session - but when it did it was "lets do a different day/time/venue to make sure GC is there," instead of the "see you next week" that everyone else got when there was a scheduling conflict.

(this is why I am always skeptical of groups that reward good attendance by not giving xp to those who skip - once a character becomes a bit more powerful, or a player has a reputation as dependable, it can easily turn into a possitive feedback loop of "he deserves a more powerful character because he shows up" building off "you don't want to face this without the more powerful character so lets make sure he can show up".)

in practical terms its often hard for a group to dispassionatly look at its own dynamic, and in particular, the DM and GC will not want to consider the idea that they're behavior is in any way unfair... so don't talk about fairness. No seriously, whatever you do, don't bring the idea of fairness into it, because they will find a way of spinning the situation (not in an evil way, just the way they will see it) that is perfectly fair from certain assumptions. so just talk about fun, and what can be done to have the entire group have more fun while not reducing the fun of the GC. In some way, it can be claimed that the GC does deserve the possition, because of senority, or better charisma (real life, not game terms) or a marginally better backstory of those presented 4 years ago from the orriginal bunch or something... So don't make it about deserving or fairness - that line of inquiry leads only to pain.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Lalato]

This reminds me of a campaign I played in last year with my group. We were playing in the Mindshadows campaign setting. My character was no more important than the others.

However, my character got whiff of a possible new patron for the ragtag group of adventurers and so set up a meeting... and informed the other characters. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to make it to the next session. Our group rules are that if a player can't make a session... neither can his character. So my character was AWOL for the session.

The other characters go to this meeting without my Character, Sanjay. When they arrive, they announce themselves as the Associates of Sanjay. Well... when I return the following week for the next session... everyone is trading inside jokes about the Associates of Sanjay... I was completely clueless.

After that, my character really was central to the campaign... It wasn't my fault. I promise.

--sam

 

[JIM]

lol !!!!!

your just jeluos sideral knigt yuo wish yuor caractar was as good as mine but its not!!!1!!!

does yuor charactor have a pet dragno corhot?!?:!? do you have improve 2w fighting ?!!! do yuo have +6 vorpal keen macuriel greatsword?!?1!

NO !!1!!!11!!lolol!!!!1

my cahrictar is sweet and you'rs is'nt yuor just jaelos because my charecter taech elminister magic and make dritz bring him cofee !!!

maybe if yuo pick better faets yuo could kill more npcs rihgt now your a pasenger and my carictur have to kill everybody himslef and yuo wunder why the dm give me teh best missons?!?!?!?

i think yuo should complane less and help more in figths insted of expetc me to always kill all teh npcs

 

[kamosa]

I've seen this happen to gaming groups, and I understand your frustration. In one group that I played in, the GM made the fighter the central player of the group, much to the detriment of the other players in the group. (The group consisted of the figher, a ranger, a mage, a priest, and a sorcerer. ) The fighter was awarded prestige classes and handed numerous powerful magical weapons, while the rest of us received nothing or had stuff taken away. Every gaming session eventually devolved into the fighter beating the bad guy while the rest of us stood around and watched, including the ranger. Well, at first we tried to take action, but nothing we did ever even impacted the situation, since the GM had scripted it to put the fighter into the limelight. This grew tiresome for the rest of the players who eventually lost interest in the game.

The GMs believed that the fighter was the most powerful member of the group, and that the rest of us should use our abilities to augment the fighter. Thus, the fighter was the only one allowed to do anything. This resulted in a viscious cycle of the fighter maintaining his position of most powerful character.

This finally reached a boiling point when the fighter's player missed a session. The GM had designed the whole game around the fighter, so instead of switching the focus to the ranger or calling the session off, he had the ranger's players play the fighter that day. The fighter once again was the only one who could effect anything, while the rest of us (including the ranger) stood around and watched the combat. The campaign ended shortly after that.

 

[Jolly Giant]

Your DM definitely needs to get his act together, no doubt about that. I can see that it's easier for him to base storylines around a long-running character who knows all the NPCs, than around character that's new to the group. And yes, because "Jim" knows all the established NPCs, a lot of the RP interactions would logically revolve around him... But that's no excuse for the kind of behaviour you're describing! (Not a very good one, anyway... )

As difficult as confrontations between friends can be, I believe one is needed here. Try keeping a civil, friendly tone, but make it perfectly clear that his DMing is frustating the entire group, with the possible exception of "Jim"...

Before you do, think about this for a little while: How much does the GROUP contribute to making "Jim" the focal point of the campaign? Maybe not at all, maybe more than you all realize... Read on:

There's definitely come to be a main character in my campaign, despite my best DMing efforts. It's not that I "favor" him in any way, it's simply down to the playing style of the group.

Most of them prefer to keep their heads down a little in difficult situations, making sure they don't draw unwanted attention to themselves, while the "Jim" of my group is much more of a take-charge kinda guy. This is equally true for combat situations as for RPing situations. We're running a pirate campaign and as soon as the group got their first very own ship, they elected "our Jim" captain; pretty symptomathic for the whole campaign...

Many, many times I've tried throwing out hooks to the other players to get them more screentime, but mostly they seem to shirk away. If I present one player with a problem or an opportunity, he either ignores it or he takes it to "Jim" to see if this is something he would like the GROUP to get involved in.

Now, I'm not saying YOUR group is like this, but mine is. And that's what's made one guy the leading character, not me!

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Another angle to consider:

When I as a DM use the background hooks of a certain character, I am, of necessity, making that character the focus of the campaign, or at least the focus of those sessions which involve that particular plot hook. i.e. if I decide that the bandits who stole Bob's sister have been sighted outside the city, then Bob becomes the lynchpin of the game for the time being. The lynchpin position often requires that the player be outgoing, be driving the action to a degree. And if a player doesn't drive the action, then the session can fizzle.

I have a similar problem in my own campaign. I took a very nice plot hook from a character's background and tossed it into the game, but when the time came for that character's player to run with it, he stalled. At the same time the other players were intentionally letting the one player take the lead, because the plot hook at hand so intimately involved his character. Only he wasn't leading the group anywhere, so everything stalled.

Now, it may be that the DM of your campaign has gotten used to making "Jim" the focus, because he knows that Jim will drive the plot, whereas he doesn't have as much faith in the rest of you. Not the best situation, but not a hanging offense, either, for a DM who wants to run a smooth session.

In any case, the solution is to talk about it with the DM. Avoid confrontation, though, because it may not be that everything is his fault, and if you aren't careful, he'll believe that you're making an accusation.

Edit to comment on

As difficult as confrontations between friends can be, I believe one is needed here. Try keeping a civil, friendly tone, but make it perfectly clear that his DMing is frustating the entire group, with the possible exception of "Jim"...

I wouldn't recommend this at all. This kind of approach makes it seem like everything is the DMs fault, and that may not be the case at all. The players' playing is likely involved in the situation as well. I'd suggest something more along the lines of "some of us would like more focus on our characters' backgrounds. We like Jim's storylines, but we'd like some of our own as well." Request change, don't accuse him of being a bad DM.

 

[LazerPointer]

Just walk, man. Jim's got a lock on that campaign. Tell the DM that you and the other players are going to have your own adventures, and that you don't need him & Jim.

If they beg to be a part of it, make them play someone else's animal companion.

 

[S'mon]

I like every PC IMC to have something that makes them stand out. Being the 'centre of attention' is a reasonable schtick but it should come at a price - one PC gets to have a Holy Avenger, another gets to be the King, and so on (I have a high-level game). Giving one PC the Holy Avenger AND the Kingdom, and giving the rest nothing, is a really bad idea IMO.