My newest campaign features a "lost heir" situation, where the plot revolves around restoring the rightful ruler to the throne. If they die, the plot can go different ways, the game doesn't game over but it certainly turns the tale darker.
Due to the heir being quite powerful, but also needing the ability to make mistakes, I've decided on letting one of my players control them. They are excited, but worries that the "favoritism" will make the others feel bad. I'm less concerned since they are a single class charater (with some benefits) in a gestalt campaign I doubt there will be too much complaining. I'm not going to develop the world in exclusion to others; but rather to tell more of an epic story rather than your standard adventure.
However, I'd like to poll you folks. Would you be ok with working towards restoring another PC to the throne as a campaign or does that interfere with sharing the spotlight.
Roleplaying is a group thing. The story should be about the group, not about one member of it.
I wouldn't play in a game like you describe.
Now, if you have other hooks, so the story is the whole parties story, it could be salvageable, but I expect that at the minimum you would have to make the character creation rules the same for all PCs (everyone gestalt or no one gestalt, no one gets 'special benefits) etc.
I also worry when ever a GM wants to tell an 'epic story' that it will be a story that the GM writes, rather than a story the PCs create.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really depends. IN FFXV, the prince is obviously the main character, and his friends are clearly supporting characters. But I could easily see a campaign where the group, with the price as their leader was the main character. Its all about how the NPCs interact with the compainions of the heir. Have those in the resistance praise the individual contributions of the others, have them recognize that its this 'strike team', not just the heir that is solving the issues. Make them feel valuable. Its also going to rely on the heir valuing in-game and out of game his PC allies. Its very possible, but it requires that the world see them as a unit with a clear and defined leader rather than the prince and his lackies. Perhaps build to that point with success, but if the other players dont feel their contributions are valued by the 'resistence' or that the usrpers consider them part of the threat, it doesn't matter if they are more combat effective - they will check out during the RP, and that will undermine your story.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It can be done, but it needs to be handled very carefully.
I would recommend not making character creation between the characters be significantly different. If you're quite certain that the single class character (with some benefits) isn't more powerful than the other characters, that's fine. But you'll want to be very careful about it.
That said, while I've never done it in Pathfinder, I've seen similar campaigns work out fine in other RPGs. A lot of Star Wars games have some Force/Jedi stuff that the non-Force Sensitives aren't a part of. And I ran a very successful, and very fun long-running Buffy the Vampire Slayer campaign. The Slayer was unquestionably the "main" character - but she didn't get to dominate every scene.
If the characters are similarly powered, and you make sure that every character has investment in the plot, then having a campaign goal of "Restore Joe the Fighter to the Throne" can be tons of fun. But make sure to develop subplots for the non-heir.
And does the heir actually need to be more powerful than the other characters? The rightful king doesn't need to have any special powers beyond the abilities of his fellow PCs to be the rightful king.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've had campaigns where the story has generally had a greater focus one on character, typically out of coincidental virtue of them picking something very close to the setting.
Our Wrath of the Righteous party includes a Chosen One Aasimar Paladin of Iomedae. I wonder who's the poster child of that group, and makes the fastest friends/enemies?
The rest of the party still has their own involvement/relations/ambitions, of course, and they always should.
I guess, in direct answer to your question:
Would I play in a campaign where another player was a 'main character' we were supporting? Absolutely.
But I would want the other PCs to be on equal footing statistically, even if the lead guy has RP perks. I'd also still want there to be hooks, events and investment for all the other players. I wouldn't consider it mutually exclusive with a main story being focused around just one.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To those who worry about the power level, it's my understanding from the way I read through the OP that the special benefits are there to make up for the fact that everyone else gets to play gestalt, but the heir doesn't, rather than to make the heir more powerful than everyone else.
That being said, I think this sort of campaign idea could certainly be fun, but oddball ideas like this really need to have unanimous buy-in from everyone involved. Sometimes people like different styles for a change of pace, but in this sort of set-up, if even one person isn't totally on board, I strongly suspect that the whole thing will fall apart when the player(s) who aren't committed to the idea get bored or frustrated with possibly feeling like a second-stringer.
As always, the best advice is to talk to your players about it and have them tell you what they think of the idea.
(As for me, personally, you would have lost me at gestalt :P )
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm basically doing that right now. Kinda. I'm in a game Here where I am playing a robot who was created by another player, therefore he calls the other player "Master" and generally takes on a servant or support role.
Now despite that, he is an eccentric and Charasmatic Oracle with delusions of grandure so he can often be more outspoken then his master simply due to the way I play him.
So, would I play a game where I was the servant to another character who was the "Main Character?" Sure.
However, only if I wanted to. Absolutely not if I got forced into it. I am just going to assume thats not the case here.
Note: due to the differences in players ability to roleplay and storytell, and the chance of dice, you may find one of the supporting characters becomes 'larger than life' and starts to eclipse the 'main character.' Its possible to have a retainer that is more famous then the main heir.
So mull over that and its possibilities.
Playing a game where 1 character is in sevitude to another can work. Playing in a game where the storyline generally follows 1 characters background, but allows some elements of the others can work. Having a game where there is differences in power levels in the group can work, as long as everyone is comfortable with it in advance, could work. However, some people just have a strong inclination to fairness and could never abide such a thing. Others just couldnt care. I mean, come on! Not everyone can be a powerhouse like the bard!!!
Just know that its viability depends entirely on your party and its people specifically. This is entirely in the area of opinion, so if you ask me or you ask Dave Justus you will get different opinions, and neither of them will match that of tge members of your group.
So your group is the ones to ask :)
And hey! It might not work anyways! Just part of the risk of playing with flesh and blood.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It can work splendidly, but does require the GM and players to be aware of it.
The important thing is to make sure everyone still has their moments in the spotlight and character stories/arcs woven into the fabric of the story.
Note that just because a character may be the rightful ruler of a country doesn't give them immediate advantages over the others. Restoring the kingdom is the long term goal at the end of the campaign, after all, so just because one of the players is the "lost heir" doesn't innately give them special advantages.
My own experience in a year-long campaign as the player of the "lost heir" restoring her kingdom, whose birthright had been usurped, was to play as a full support character. Started as a Bard (Sandman), but ended up reclassing into a Cleric (Evangelist) after the party's close brush with the divine. While she certainly had good social skills, there was a lot of disguising and relying on the others to do investigating whenever the party was in towns controlled by the usurpers. The other party members were a former general of the court, now in exile after the coup (elf magus), a martial artist from the southern tribes who while continuing his mastery decided to help in exchange for the party having saved him from slavers (half-orc monk), the captain of the royal yacht on which the general had fled with the young heir during the coup (half-elf gunslinger) , and a prodigious young spy who had trained in tutelage under the spymaster of the court (human ninja).
My character focused on team-support in buffing/inspire courage (oratory, which made for great royalty themed speeches later). It is important, I think, to establish that the lost heir can't do everything alone, she needs to trust and rely on her friends/companions. While there is no need to go completely into a "damsel in distress" mode, it may be less "in your face" to have the party support role be filled by the lost heir character, as opposed to the front liner or master of arcane arts. It lets you act as more of an enabler, helping the rest of the party members be more heroic and do cool things, and creates a nice subconscious reciprocal feeling of balance ("they are doing this to help the heir, and the heir is doing this to help them").
Listening to others, asking for advice from your party members helps to play up their strengths too while passing around the spotlight. It also incidentally, being a good listener is a good trait of a ruler.
In terms of that long-term goal, the "lost heir" doesn't need to be terribly weaker than the other characters, but it makes sense for traits and feats to thematically work towards the goal. Traits like "Family Resemblance" offer a lot- offering a bonus in some situations and a complication in others. Taking the Leadership feat is also fantastic for showing character development, and is easily tweaked- we used it to help stat out various NPCs we had recruited/convinced to help us.
Ultimately it will rely on the players and group dynamic, but it can make for an epic game. We played ours for a year and it was the most memorable game we've played in the last 5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I believed in the character I was restoring to the throne, I'd be all for it. I'd suggest that the players pick who should be the heir. (DM could settle ties or vote too.) That would probably be the most important step on the epic campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sub-plots for the other characters is important, but the players need to understand that they are just that, sub-plots. Ultimately, the other players need to be on board with playing the co-stars.
Sure, they'll get some lime-light, but not an equal amount. The sum of all of the individual co-stars' lime-light will equal the main character's. 50% for the lost heir, 50% for everyone else.
Think about A New Hope. Obi, Leia, Chewbacca, R2-D2 and C-3PO have almost no character growth/change/development. Han has the most of the co-stars.
I'm playing in a Drow campaign right now as an Abjurer. "No one fears the abjurer," as Zilv is fond of saying. He was LN until the group ignored his plea for assistance and was killed. Came back as a vampire and was quite irritated with his family for leaving him high and dry.
A few levels later we need to infiltrate. I suggest polymorphing into bats as that's not suspicious. I've polymorphed one or two, but this is the first time that it'll be everyone. They agree. Vampires are necessarily evil and I'm prevented from killing anyone in my family due to a blood pact. But baleful polymorph? That's not killing. Having them in the palm of my hand, I tell the DM that I cast only polymorph and request that I be allowed to return to LN. He agrees.
The abjurer (well, any abjurer, really) is a co-star. In 11 levels I haven't done a single point of damage, let alone kill anyone. Nothing I did in the above story furthered the main plot. However, it was personally very satisfying and my character grew as a result.
If the other players, the co-stars, are interested in that sort of story-telling, this kind of campaign can be a great deal of fun for everyone involved.
I would not be okay playing in a campaign like the one OP described, there's too much that can go wrong with that kind of skewed "plotlight". It's nearly inevitable that the other players will eventually start to feel bothered by the fact that their characters are just side characters whose purpose is to help the plot important one to reach their goal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would you be ok with working towards restoring another PC to the throne as a campaign or does that interfere with sharing the spotlight.
Depends on the 'main' player - and on how much I can define my own role in this story. Playing a dedicated martial protector becomes more interesting in such a campaign, but it has to be my decision.
And I wouldn't feel overshadowed just because another PC gets a throne - high level PCs can earn so many nice things. Who wants such an exposed position, anyway?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I unintentionally create a main character if one of my players portrays his character in ways that I really like AND the player is engaged with making the character better. It's almost like they become a teacher's pet and I find it difficult to run the game without them. In my current campaign the party's Psion Telepath is this character. I didn't do it on purpose, but she's the party face and most powerful member of the troupe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skull and Shackles requires a pirate captain. This is usually one of the PCs, chosen by the rest.
The key, as others have mentioned, is to be sure everyone gets to share in the limelight. Some players need it more than others. If all the players are having fun, having a railroading main character can work. If some are not having fun, even with a main character that shares the limelight with them, then it does not work.
Buy-in from the players at the outset is needed, and you keeping the attention hogging to a minimum.
/cevah
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'Main' characters are frequently upstaged, outshone or just plain out-cooled by supporting characters all the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'Main' characters are frequently upstaged, outshone or just plain out-cooled by supporting characters all the time.
Like The Green Hornet and Kato.
/cevah
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I might play in such a game, but I would have to trust both the GM and the "Main Character" player to make sure that everyone has a good share of the spotlight and a roughly equal amount of plot agency. Even if the plot does revolve around the "MC," the other PCs have to be able to make decisions that matter.
Sure, they'll get some lime-light, but not an equal amount. The sum of all of the individual co-stars' lime-light will equal the main character's. 50% for the lost heir, 50% for everyone else.
Think about A New Hope. Obi, Leia, Chewbacca, R2-D2 and C-3PO have almost no character growth/change/development. Han has the most of the co-stars.
I don't think it has to be quite that unbalanced. I'd say Buffy the Vampire Slayer is more like 30% Buffy, 60% secondary cast (Willow, Xander, Giles, Angel/Spike), 10% tertiary cast. Ron and Hermoione also get a pretty big spotlight in Harry Potter. And these are stories that aren't consciously trying to evenly distribute the spotlight - when Ron gets upset that people pay more attention to Harry, it's just a plot point, not a disappointed player.
For examples where a plot is centered around one character while not actually giving that character a majority of the spotlight, see Snow White and the Huntsman (everything happens around/because of Snow White, but the Huntsman is at least as important a character) or in the extreme case Willow (where the Chosen One is an infant).
My own experience in a year-long campaign as the player of the "lost heir" restoring her kingdom, whose birthright had been usurped, was to play as a full support character ...
My character focused on team-support in buffing/inspire courage (oratory, which made for great royalty themed speeches later). It is important, I think, to establish that the lost heir can't do everything alone, she needs to trust and rely on her friends/companions. While there is no need to go completely into a "damsel in distress" mode, it may be less "in your face" to have the party support role be filled by the lost heir character, as opposed to the front liner or master of arcane arts. It lets you act as more of an enabler, helping the rest of the party members be more heroic and do cool things, and creates a nice subconscious reciprocal feeling of balance ("they are doing this to help the heir, and the heir is doing this to help them").
This sounds like a useful approach. As you say, it's thematic since it encourages the "heir" PC to have leadership skills. And by playing a buffing/support role the "heir" effectively shifts a lot of spotlight to the other PCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically the Jade Regent AP... Because that is the AP's main thing is getting the NPC back on the throne she didn't know she was supposed to be sitting on.
I would lean to keeping important person an NPC and letting the players make basically an honor guard. Final Fantasy X and XV both come to mind as neither main character is getting anything done without the rest of the party.
Hey folks, I love all the replies thus far. I've had a really full day at work and running my other campaign, so I just wanted to let you know I'll be doing a large series of replies and extra added information.
Thanks for your time, more sometime tomorrow when I have the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would play in a game like that, if all the players had buy-in and the campaign were structured to ensure that the secondary characters had important roles. A common trope in fiction is the final battle where the secondary characters are buying time for the main character to complete their quest (e.g., the Lord of the Rings). Everyone is important, and neither succeeds without the other.
Usually, the party face character ends up in this role, and the evolution of a character as the party face is more or less organic. Or, the group has a player with strong RP skills, and a well fleshed-out character and background with lots of hooks for the GM to work with. This is also organic. I think this really works better than trying to set up a character for the role, but there is no reason why the latter can't work.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Note that the Jade Regent Player's Guide has a brief sidebar presenting an option in which the players can BE the main 4 characters, one of whom is Ameiko. So somebody at Paizo thought the idea had enough merit to earn a short sidebar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally dont mind helping a player become to king and wouldnt mind if the other PC is stronger than mine either, this already can happen based on optimization or who is the full caster around.
Ofc, the main aspect as others said here is that subplots then became open to me.
I would in turn focus on knowing NPCs during the game and pursing personal objectives with them, even if simpler stuff like marrying and having kids, maybe building stuff or just trying to become famous for selling the best peaches in the whole region :P.
I wouldn't like it. I would not want to play 2nd fiddle to an NPC, and what happens if he dies? Of course as the GM you can always give the star character a way out, but for me i would feel like I was leaning way too hard on the railroads.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, the king gets the glory; he also gets the paperwork and face-time obligations. The powers behind the throne - the close cabal of men and women who help the king rule from both the light and the shadows - these are the most fearsome people of the kingdom. They can go where a king may not, see what a king may not, do what a king may not, and destroy what a king may not, even though they act for the crown. ...probably.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be a shame if the "main character" were to meet an unfortunate demise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been in a campaign like this which started off well, but ended up with the GM & one of the two 'main characters' playing off each other without the rest of the party being involved. It didn't help that the person playing said main character had an attitude that the other players could have pushed to be one of those two main characters, and since they didn't they should just accept being unimportant.
In other words vet your player for the main character before starting, and try not to forget the other characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they die, the plot can go different ways, the game doesn't game over but it certainly turns the tale darker.
Yeah, guys, I think the ability of the main character to die was already included in the OP. Considering it was mentioned in the OP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It can work splendidly, but does require the GM and players to be aware of it.
The important thing is to make sure everyone still has their moments in the spotlight and character stories/arcs woven into the fabric of the story.
Note that just because a character may be the rightful ruler of a country doesn't give them immediate advantages over the others. Restoring the kingdom is the long term goal at the end of the campaign, after all, so just because one of the players is the "lost heir" doesn't innately give them special advantages.My own experience in a year-long campaign as the player of the "lost heir" restoring her kingdom, whose birthright had been usurped, was to play as a full support character. Started as a Bard (Sandman), but ended up reclassing into a Cleric (Evangelist) after the party's close brush with the divine. While she certainly had good social skills, there was a lot of disguising and relying on the others to do investigating whenever the party was in towns controlled by the usurpers. The other party members were a former general of the court, now in exile after the coup (elf magus), a martial artist from the southern tribes who while continuing his mastery decided to help in exchange for the party having saved him from slavers (half-orc monk), the captain of the royal yacht on which the general had fled with the young heir during the coup (half-elf gunslinger) , and a prodigious young spy who had trained in tutelage under the spymaster of the court (human ninja).
My character focused on team-support in buffing/inspire courage (oratory, which made for great royalty themed speeches later). It is important, I think, to establish that the lost heir can't do everything alone, she needs to trust and rely on her friends/companions. While there is no need to go completely into a "damsel in distress" mode, it may be less "in your face" to have the party support role be filled by the lost heir character, as opposed to the front liner or master of arcane arts. It lets you act as more of...
Lots and lots of this!
In the end you are going to know your players better than anyone here. So if you do wind up with a primary character that is more powerful stat wise just make sure you incorporate the players around him/her. Also don't forget that politics doesn't care how many points you have on your sheet. So it's highly likely that said heir would get pulled into political situations that they couldn't touch and would need the others to help him/her through. It sounds like you already had some future thoughts about the game you're going to run by your comments about but maybe some of these will help too:
Sokka: In Avatar the Last Airbender he was the lowest on the totem pole as far as overall power but he still played a vital role to 'Team Avatar' due to his quick wits (comedy, planning, and later his cunning). Sure it wasn't his destiny to save the world line Aang, but his secondary contributions played a big part in the story. Especially in helping to find ways to thwart the Fire Nations technology.
Justice League: In the episode 'The Greatest Story Never Told' Booster Gold was constantly complaining about being left behind. He was desperate to make a difference but for seemingly all the wrong reasons. But as the main heroes of the story congregate to battle it out with a major foe, Booster Gold continues to dwell on his bruised ego. It doesn't help that people continue to confuse him with Green Lantern. But when an attractive scientist catches his eye pleading for help (which inadvertently placates his desire to be noticed) he's hooked. He realizes he's woefully inept to handle the problem alone but he's able to partner up with the scientist to stop the black hole disaster forming. And in that moment it clicks. No he's not in front of a camera and people aren't treating him like the second coming of Superman. But in that moment he matters and he has to step up and be the hero. And in the end he does. And his actions matter to those people he saved, finding satisfaction in that.
Asami: Going back to the Avatar series, in The Legend of Korra, once again we see a super powerful 'heir'/destiny type figure but Asami fits in well for a number of reasons. Asami's backstory, while initially a love interest of Mako, her story becomes intertwined with Korra's when it is found out that her father supported the major villain for the first story arc. Smart, savvy, with contacts and much needed resources, Asami isn't the main focus of the story but she becomes a pivotal one. And it doesn't hurt that her backstory ties well to Korra's and becomes kind of a long running redemption story (even if not explicitly stated at times). In the final series she winds up becoming the love interest of the main character and a crutch for Korra to lean on as she battles her own inner demons.
So you see there are plenty of ways to work with what you have and give the non 'heir to the throne' characters enough meat and potatoes to make them feel they matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the main focus of the campaign is to defeat/remove the BBEG rather than to get a specific PC or NPC into the position that the BBEG holds or covets, then most of the problems are avoided. If one of the PCs has an equal or better claim to the position in question, then getting that PC into that position could be a secondary goal and/or a natural consequence of the PCs' victory.
Shakespeare's Hamlet could actually be used as a model for this sort of campaign. The overall goal of a campaign with that plot would be to kill Claudius (achieved) with a secondary goal of putting Hamlet on the throne in his place (failed). To make the plot of Hamlet into a suitable RPG campaign, you would need to introduce or upgrade several characters so that there are other PCs who have at least as much motivation as Hamlet to kill Claudius.
Come to think of it, you would have to get Hamlet away from Elsinore and beef up Claudius and his allies considerably, as a typical party of murderhobo PCs would not dither about as Hamlet did.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1: I agree foremost that communication is key--talk about this to your players and keep soliciting feedback throughout.
2: Were I in your shoes, I would frame this not as the "lost heir" as being the "main character," but rather he is a plot-pivotal character--but all of the PCs in their own way should be plot-pivotal and have important roles to play. All the PCs should always be the main characters collectively--but each has his/her own role and should feel like they matter. All PCs should have their own cool destiny--the rogue might become the nation's spymaster; the wizard might get to build and become head of his own wizard academy. Ask the players what they want for their characters and make sure their own grand goals are met along with the heir ascending to the throne.
3. Ways I've seen things go wrong: I played in a game once where there was apparently a "main character"--the problem was that the GM didn't really fully disclose this to the players; he just constantly showed favoritism to one character who happened to be played by his buddy, and tended to ignore what the party did, even when doing spectacular things, while putting every sentence his buddy said on a pedestal. To make matters worse, the "Star" tended to do little interaction with other players, so didn't really inspire the other PCs to want to support him in his "heroic" role. It wasn't till much later that the GM actually pointed out he had intended the one character to be "the hero"; the unspoken implication was that in his mind everyone else was just NPCs he happened to allow other people to play (and he really should have just run the game as a solo campaign). It was a rotten, miserable campaign--one of the worst games I've ever played in, I think--and I left halfway through. But what this illustrates here is actual intentional favoritism and moreover lousy communication. Avoid both and you should be fine.
4: Ways I've seen things go right: when the PCs choose their own leaders, PC or NPC. I ran a game--and I should note up front all credit here goes to the players, I was kind of winging it along--where events occurred that there was a vacancy to a throne. I had not decided that the throne was for one of the PCs--I had in face created a number of potential candidates that the PCs might or might not support as they chose. One of the PCs expressed an interest in taking the throne for himself, and the others agreed of their own accord to help the PC attain the throne. Because it was their idea--and it really was all their idea--all the PCs were happy to do this as a collective joint goal and at least to the best of my knowledge no one felt sidelined (the other PCs also had their own goals that they helped each other attain and everyone got what they wanted, which is really the point). Even in your case where you plan to make one PC the ruler, creating circumstances to enable the idea that the PCs all really want this one goal, can really help. If it's something the PCs and moreover players really want to accomplish, they will feel fulfilled heading toward that goal. (And for that matter, if the PCs decide, the heir included, they don't want the throne, then adaptations should be made.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I want to add is that it doesn't matter what we like. It matters if your players will like it. Tell them about this up front to see if they will agree to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am already planning something similar for the next Pathfinder campaign I am in. I am thinking of playing a 40-55 year old half-elf or gillman with another player playing my much younger half-sibling. My character's purpose would be to assist with whatever adventuring hooks that player comes up with for his own character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hells yes I would, but then I'm not one of your players. Ask 'em, and listen.
Depends.
If it's the kind I usually wind up in, where the 'main character' is the GM's masturbatory self-insertion Mary Sue 40th level NPC who does everything while the rest of us 2nd level pissants are supposed to sit around the table and golf-clap at his AWSUMNISS, then I would not be OK with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Used to play DC Heroes. The first GM we had would do that. We'd be dukin' it out with the evildoers and BAM! Superman flies in and wipes them out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my Champions Game (a home brewed superhero setting using the HERO system, not to be mistaken with the Champions universe) The premiere team is called the Centurians (yes 100 members). When they show up one of three things is happening
1) They are warning the community about something big is about to/has hit the fan. The Players are there as support: The story is about them helping to defend the planet/country/etc...The Centurions are not "part of the action". For example when the world is invaded there is some flavor about the Centurions are beginning an assault on the mothership, but the heroes need to save THERE city from the squads of aliens attacking
2) The centurions are an information source...The heroes call them to find out about something, get help deciphering the magic, etc...
3)The Centurions need help (The heroes have to rescue them)
Note the story ALWAYS focuses on the Heroes, with the Centurions being there as background/Assistance
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OP: yes, done exactly that in 1e. Dwarf PC prince usurped by his kid brother who murdered daddy and seized the throne, secretly aided by a bunch of drow. Ran from level 1 to 11, was fine. Another PC was the second brother, perhaps in case the first died permanently.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It can work splendidly, but does require the GM and players to be aware of it.
The important thing is to make sure everyone still has their moments in the spotlight and character stories/arcs woven into the fabric of the story.
Note that just because a character may be the rightful ruler of a country doesn't give them immediate advantages over the others. Restoring the kingdom is the long term goal at the end of the campaign, after all, so just because one of the players is the "lost heir" doesn't innately give them special advantages.My own experience in a year-long campaign as the player of the "lost heir" restoring her kingdom, whose birthright had been usurped, was to play as a full support character. Started as a Bard (Sandman), but ended up reclassing into a Cleric (Evangelist) after the party's close brush with the divine. While she certainly had good social skills, there was a lot of disguising and relying on the others to do investigating whenever the party was in towns controlled by the usurpers. The other party members were a former general of the court, now in exile after the coup (elf magus), a martial artist from the southern tribes who while continuing his mastery decided to help in exchange for the party having saved him from slavers (half-orc monk), the captain of the royal yacht on which the general had fled with the young heir during the coup (half-elf gunslinger) , and a prodigious young spy who had trained in tutelage under the spymaster of the court (human ninja).
...
I likewise ran a campaign whose goal was escorting a lost heir to her ancestral country and overthrowing the usurper. I played the heir as an NPC party member. I follow strict rules for GMPCs: never let them steal the limelight. This character became support, the den mother and healer of the adventurers who protected her.
Session zero, when the players planned their characters to fit the campaign, was the key to character harmony. Several players created characters from that ancestral country or whose parents were from the country, so they had their own interest in returning. Other characters simply liked world travel. My wife went extreme: she created a character who had been searching for the lost heir. Once she found the heir, her goal changed to the plot of the campaign, to put the heir on the throne.
The party did not reach Minkai until the fifth module, Tide of Honor. Since the PCs had their own reasons for visiting Minkai, Amaya was essentially just another traveler in the party for the first four modules, except for the ninja taking extra care that Amaya was unharmed. Two players joined the game after the reveal that Amaya was a royal heir, and the other players kept Amaya's royalty secret from both the new PCs and their players for a dozen game sessions. The new players had noticed the ninja's bodyguard duties, so they were not stunned by the reveal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Holy Jeeze lets start doing replies...
Roleplaying is a group thing....
I've been working on this campaign in my head for a long, long time. Back in what seems like another life, I thought about making it into an RPG similar to Baldurs Gate, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and other Bioware games that provide a coherent plot from a to z with choices, companions, and multiple endings based on the player's decisions. The whole game is based around meeting "a story you create" and "an epic framework". There are key events that need to occur, but ultimately there is freedom in getting from A to B.
The most memorable part of those games, in my opinion, were always your companions so I never intended to shut them out. However, the plot demands that the main character have access to unique powers. More on that later.
It really depends...
I like celebrating them as a unit, that idea can take this campaign quite far. I always intended a tactical feel back when this was just my brainchild, so encouraging their togetherness could create a real bond. Especially if I finangle things correctly. This is great advice, thank you.
It can be done, but it needs to be handled very carefully.
Jedi is a decent comparison, but mix in a little ang from Avatar the Last Airbender. The campaign is a homebrew, and takes place in a stable plane tucked within the center of the elemental planes. Due to the nearby planes, nearly everyone has access to Kineticist levels which I blended into the game as having everyone be Kinetic Gestalts. The plot centric character would have begun the game as one of the few who wasn't in touch with their elemental powers...at least until the game begins. From there they have limited control over their powers at the beginning, and learn to control each element over time until their mastery of them all allows them to face off against the BBEG.
We've had campaigns where the story has generally had a greater focus one on character...
Absolutely there will be hooks and events for the other characters, I plan to keep this campaign inclusive for all of the characters within it. Companions are the key to having a successful story, no man/woman is an island, etc.
However, I personally do not believe that enforcing an even start is required due to my particular group. I lack power gamers, except for maybe one dude who loves to meme, and our parties tend to be more fun than optimized. This means that a little more power one place or another doesn't matter much since the group is not terribly focused on squeezing out optimization.
Thanks for sharing your personal experiences by the way, I love anecdotes and examples of this idea functioning are fun to read.
More responses to come tomorrow folks, I'm beat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have run a few games like this in the past, and I am running one in PbP right now. One thing that can work is that the person playing the "main character" is very aware of what the other players want and makes decisions accordingly, essentially surrendering a little of their control of their character to the rest of the party. I'm currently running a version of Throne of Night where one character is the heir to the throne. All of the characters defer to the decision making of this young king to be, but the player of that character always seeks consensus from the other players before making a decision.
I've played in non-TTRPG roleplays that worked like this. It was among the worst experiences I ever had roleplaying.
IMO I do not recommend.
I've found that players often get jealous about the stupidest things.
If you do go ahead you need to make sure to have equal emphasis and cool backstory on all of the players, give them each something equivalent to what you give the "lost heir" in terms of backstory and goals.
In my experience it's probably better to run them all of supporters of a lost NPC heir, or as all "lost heirs" coming from the same family.
But even that can be tricky.
If I had to do something like this i'd probably arrange something like:
Character 1 - the lost heir.
Character 2 - the lost heir's betrothed.
Character 3 - A character who has incredible motivation to protect #1 and #2, something like: You pledged to your dying father on your mother's grave and before all the Gods that you would protect them and restore them to the throne.
Character 4 - A character who's fortune is directly tied to the restoration of #1 and #2. He needs a pardon specifically from a this king, his house restored or something like that.
That way everyone goes in with the concrete goal of a team. The issue of course is that the whole thing goes to pot if character 1 is an idiot, runs off with prostitutes, treats character 4 meanly, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of the characters defer to the decision making of this young king to be, but the player of that character always seeks consensus from the other players before making a decision.
I think this sums it up best.
It's totally ok if one of the characters is the main character of the story.
It's less ok if one of the players is the main player of the game.
I would play this campaign in some of the groups I've been in and run away from it with other groups. It's all about player dynamics and how they work.
Power-wise, I'd resist having one character be significantly stronger or significantly weaker than the others. The lead character can have unique perks, but they should be balanced with the others. The idea of them being a single-class character while others are gestalt means that they'll be roughly on par in terms of power, but may have less flexibility or endurance. Another idea is to gestalt them with an NPC class, aristocrat being an obvious choice. This will allow them to get a little benefit, but still be a little less than the other characters.
Spotlight-wise, make sure to include things for other characters, both as a group and individually. I'd also suggest that people try and link backgrounds with the heir if possible. If people are playing the heir's bodyguard, tutor and childhood best friend, then they are ivested in his story. Other options may be people from smaller noble families hwo hope to improve their station if the heir gets power.