aco175
Legend
He is the DMNPC with plot armor.
D&D General In D&D, the Big Bad is the Main Character
- Thread starter DMrichard
- Start date
Golden Bee
The cool guy of online
All of your initial criteria might be true, but none of them define a main character.
The main character of a story is often the one with the most screen time. But they are defined by the fact that they change in reaction to the world. (Or if they don’t, they are tragic protagonists, like Don Quixote.)
You’ve found four traits defining an antagonist.
But there are plenty of memorable bad guys that don’t meet all your criteria.
1. Sometimes Buffy villains were the center of the plot, sometimes not.
2. Sauron and Frodo never come face-to-face.
3. In Captain America: Civil War, Baron Zemo isn’t important, merely influential.
4. In The Incredibles, Mr. Incredible acts first, with Buddy reacting to him.
Your article makes good points that the villain should relate to the players, but I don’t think there’s any villain strong enough to keep a campaign together.
The main character of a story is often the one with the most screen time. But they are defined by the fact that they change in reaction to the world. (Or if they don’t, they are tragic protagonists, like Don Quixote.)
You’ve found four traits defining an antagonist.
But there are plenty of memorable bad guys that don’t meet all your criteria.
1. Sometimes Buffy villains were the center of the plot, sometimes not.
2. Sauron and Frodo never come face-to-face.
3. In Captain America: Civil War, Baron Zemo isn’t important, merely influential.
4. In The Incredibles, Mr. Incredible acts first, with Buddy reacting to him.
Your article makes good points that the villain should relate to the players, but I don’t think there’s any villain strong enough to keep a campaign together.
Last edited:
No, that is just droid metal skin.
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
Although this is an interesting lens to view games, I'm going to have to disagree with the premise.
To take a famous example, Critical Role is about the player characters, in part because DM Matt Mercer often doesn't know where a campaign is going when it starts. Campaign 2, the Mighty Nein, for instance, developed a BBEG in the last 25% of the game (as I recall) after all the other threads had been largely wrapped up but everyone was clearly interested in still playing.
I suspect many campaigns develop organically this way.
Even if a campaign is more tightly plotted from the beginning -- and the gods laugh at DM plans of this sort -- the BBEG is rarely a point of view character. They may be the plot engine, but that doesn't make them the main character, any more than the Death Star is the main character of Star Wars.
To take a famous example, Critical Role is about the player characters, in part because DM Matt Mercer often doesn't know where a campaign is going when it starts. Campaign 2, the Mighty Nein, for instance, developed a BBEG in the last 25% of the game (as I recall) after all the other threads had been largely wrapped up but everyone was clearly interested in still playing.
I suspect many campaigns develop organically this way.
Even if a campaign is more tightly plotted from the beginning -- and the gods laugh at DM plans of this sort -- the BBEG is rarely a point of view character. They may be the plot engine, but that doesn't make them the main character, any more than the Death Star is the main character of Star Wars.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
The OP is the opposite of true.
There is no particular reason why a D&D campaign needs to have a "big bad" at all, but even if it does, the game is about the players, not the DM. The OP seems to be suggesting that the DM pushes their own character into the spotlight, relegating the players to supporting roles. A "Big Bad" is a DMPC. It's important for the DM to avoid their characters hogging the limelight. And that might require making villains less interesting.
There is no particular reason why a D&D campaign needs to have a "big bad" at all, but even if it does, the game is about the players, not the DM. The OP seems to be suggesting that the DM pushes their own character into the spotlight, relegating the players to supporting roles. A "Big Bad" is a DMPC. It's important for the DM to avoid their characters hogging the limelight. And that might require making villains less interesting.
If a DM wants to have a "plot" and doesn't want to railroad, the DM has no direct control over the actions of the PCs.
But the DM legitimately has control over the BBEG's plans. They can even arrange for certain things to happen, like the BBEG makes a particular mistake, without taking away anyone's agency.
The BBEG doesn't have to be in the spotlight for this to happen. But if the BBEG is driving the narrative - if they are the protagonist - the DM has control over that part of the story. And the DM can arrange is to that if the PCs don't get involved, the story will be a sensible and interesting one.
In this framework, the PCs act as antagonists. Their actions are to oppose the story the DM has crafted with the BBEG as the protagonist pushing a certain story outcome. Their success shouldn't be given -- heck, even their participation shouldn't be given -- but neither should it be barred.
The camera - the spotlight - can remain on the PCs. But the driving factor in the plot can be the actions of the BBEG.
This is a very common trope in superhero fiction. The avengers assemble in response to a problem - the active instigator is the BBEG, even if the heroes don't know it.
This isn't the only way to play D&D. But it isn't "the BBEG has the spotlight and the players are supporting roles" strawman.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
When, exactly, is your DMPC making their moves, if they are not interacting with the PCs (something, which I will point out, the OP assumes will happen regularly)? You seem to be suggesting that the DM spends as much, or more, time playing with themselves than they do with the players.
In my campaigns, things can happen off screen. For that matter, things may happen that don't involve the PCs at all. I have a living world in an ongoing campaign so occasionally I'll ponder what's happening over in this section of the world that was impacted by the previous campaigns. What are the ripple effects of previous campaign lore and conclusions or ripple effects of the current campaign?
It may never have any impact other than some DM notes that I keep, or it may give me an option for a future campaign where people can go "That's right, we heard something about [fill in the blank] but never did anything about it!" A lot of times these unfollowed subplots will just kind of fade away like memories of a dream, but other times they can inspire new, cool stories. Leaving some threads dangling at the end of a campaign can lead to interesting threads to pick up in the next, by a new group of heroes.
Not sure that makes the BBEG the main character, but they can still be a character.
Yes, they can be making their moves when they are not interacting with the PCs?
Are you saying that DMs spending prep time away from a table is unexpected?
If we steal a page from Dungeon World with its Fronts/Dangers/Dooms, we can even give it a mechanical framework if that helps. But it isn't needed.
You make a Front (a problem or issue in the world), and populate it with a few Dangers. The Front is an organizational method more than anything - a clumping of related Dangers, and a way to say "I want this problem to have more than a single line of events".
Each of these Dangers have Grim Portents and a Doom. The "Doom" is what happens if the Danger isn't confronted. The Grim Portents are the things that can happen along the way, and in a sense expose the Danger to the world (the steps along the way, the side effects, etc).
The Dangers are in a sense Protagonists, as they are modifying the story and the world. The PCs play antagonists, foiling the "plans" of the Dangers.
And while the names are negative, they don't have to be.
Crownless King of the Dwarves is a Danger. He's trying to retake his ancestral home.
The Doom is an all-out assault by his clan, which leads to the destruction of the people.
Grim Portents could be an initial heroic victory (giving him higher status), a gathering of the clans (legitimacy), a migration (maybe a war or battle with someone who doesn't want a dwarven army moving through their territory?), the retaking of some outer fort (which could be disasterous), then the doom (leading to the fall of the Dwarven nation, as too much strength was sapped by the failed endevour).
Meanwhile, we could have some dark necromancer using that same ancestral home to do something awful as a 2nd danger. A gate to the afterlife, so they can get their lover back? With horrible consequences or costs along the way. Are they using the dwarves as a distraction? Are they in cahoots with the powers that currently hold the ancestral homelands?
Maybe the powers in the ancestral homelands are another danger - but only if they are up to something.
We could add in a meddling 3rd party; say, the ones that will take advantage of the dwarven weakness if they wipe themselves out.
You can sketch this out with dooms and portents, and then have it go on in the background. PCs can interact with it or not, depending on if they care. And you could have a few different fronts active.
In this sense, the protagonists in the worlds constructed story become the BBEG/NPCs. The players can mess with it, or become movers and shakers themselves -- but the DM can't assume what the players are going to do next. So you sketch your plot assuming they don't do anything, and leave opportunities for PCs to do stuff about it.
The spotlight remains on the players. Table time is taken up by what they are doing.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Doesn't the DM need to be concentrating on what the PCs are doing, not playing a little game on their own?
And if they are not interacting with the players, how are they characters at all? How does it differ from "the DM decides some stuff happens"?
If it involves the DM playing D&D by themselves it is.
