D&D General In D&D, the Big Bad is the Main Character

[Paul Farquhar]

Ok, sure, now tell me about your RPG games where the PCs decided to become a Robin Hood like character on their own?

Curse of Strahd.


Frankly, it's pretty easy to set up in a sandbox campaign. The PCs discover the land is ruled by an evil tyrant, what else are they going to do? Especially when said tyrant is sitting on all the fat loot?

 

[Starfox]

I'd say the heroes of Star Wars are reactionary rather than progressive, wanting to turn back time.

This was a joke. Trying to change the world back to an earlier pristine state is actually to change the world. And since there really is no way back, the "restoration" is still a new state. Thus the NEW republic.

 

[Starfox]

Curse of Strahd. [...] The PCs discover the land is ruled by an evil tyrant, what else are they going to do? Especially when said tyrant is sitting on all the fat loot?

Work for him? Actually, that is how my players reacted in Skull & Shackles. So the captain /(and supposed antagonist) is a murderous tyrant pirate? Well, we are level 1 and aspire to be pirates. So in that case they weren't even reactive, they were followers.

 

[Oofta]

You can almost always spin a story as "reactive" if you want. Robin Hood? They were reacting to corrupt leadership and merely trying to restore the old king. Doesn't sound particularly proactive to me.

Obviously if everything is peaceful and everyone is blissfully happy, there's no need for adventurers. So of course there are going to be threats the PCs react to. In order for there to be protagonists, there have to be antagonists.

 

[Weiley31]

The Hero in the eyes of one country is the Tyrant in the eyes of another.

 

[Clint_L]

Just as in most action movies, the villain is the guy that actually wants to DO something, to change the world. The heroes are usually just kneejerk conservatives who try to preserve the status quo.

I agree that's true of most action films, which is precisely why I don't build my campaigns that way. There are lots of people with different agendas doing stuff, and sometimes the players make choices that brings them into conflict. Their characters don't just exist to foil the antagonists.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Ok, sure, now tell me about your RPG games where the PCs decided to become a Robin Hood like character on their own?

A few years back I was playing in a game set in a fantasy Roman Empire. I decided to be Spartacus. The GM did NOT want that. The game dissolved shortly thereafter.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A few years back I was playing in a game set in a fantasy Roman Empire. I decided to be Spartacus. The GM did NOT want that. The game dissolved shortly thereafter.

Well, if the DM let you be Sparticus, everyone would want to be Sparticus.

 

[jgsugden]

Inherently, no. The Villain is not the main character. This is a game that follows the PCs, not the NPCs, and is about their exploits. The action follows them, and the entire point of the game is to see where they can go. If I eliminate the villain from the world what happens to the game? If I eliminate the PCs, what happens? In which of those two senarios can the game continue, and in which does the game fail?

NPCs are important, and a great DM will give them significance and meaning ... but the main characters are inherently the PCs.