DMPC

Well he is one of the gold dragons that serve bahamut with a mortal curse so perhaps his death would also be his ascension, never to see the pcs again.

>Treat him as a NPC/hireling and not as a DMPC and you'll be fine
basically this
the PCs are heroes, your DMPC isn't. that doesn't mean he can't have a personality and a backstory, but keep all that shit in the background (ie. don't bring it up unless your players specifically address it) and don't let him be the one to make big decisions

This is essentially what I'm trying to do, make him an interesting follower in a way. He doesn't instigate fights (unless the story specifically calls for it.) And he doesn't go out of his way to open locked doors or things of that nature, basically like a kindof attack dog often heard saying "so... we're killing these guys right?" After the party has made their descisions. I'm not sure if you're all familiar with the story in HotDQ but in episode one there's an un win able fight, and I hate putting pcs through that shit so he kindof took the place of that and the players liked him enough to keep him around.

>DMPC is speshul gold dragon
>Death=ascension

From my admittedly limited dm experience, that's not a good plan and backstory for a companion.

Instead of ascension, make it apparent that this guy is risking everything for a group of people that he calls friends knowing that there is no golden road to stroll off on afterwards. If he dies, then there is no hope of restoring his former glory. If you are going to make the mortalized dragon, truly make him mortal. Otherwise there is no real sacrifice

Makes sense certainly, I'm just no good at bittersweet type endings, I'm used to the whole everyone saves the day stuff. I'm a pussy like that I guess.

>Am I a horrible person for having a DMPC?
Yes you are
>and his responses are randomized based on a die roll.
Yes you are

I mean fuck, you might as well have a fucking wolf that's totally loyal to one of the players (but will do nothing else except attack in battle, and also takes its share of EXP)

But he doesn't take xp or gold or items, that would just be shitty.

Yes, if a NPC takes part in combat, they take EXP. Gold is a matter of negotiation.

Not related to OP, but I actually enjoyed a brief campaign where we had a "DMPC" lodestone, who was an idiot moralfag who constantly tried to veto our necessary skulduggery, and we got XP for circumventing him.

Does this make me a bad person?

Yes. Don't make DMPCs. It never ends well.

You already have NPCs, you don't need another piece of baggage.

NPC PARTY MEMBERS
An NPC might join the party, if only for a short time. Here are
some tips to help you run an NPC party member:
- Let the characters make the important decisions. They are the protagonists of the adventure. If the characters ask an NPC party member for advice or direction, remember that NPCs
make mistakes too.
- An NPC won't deliberately put himself or herself in harm's way unless there's a good reason to do so. An NPC won't treat all party members the same way, which can create some fun friction. As an NPC gets to know the characters, think about which characters the NPC likes most and which ones the NPC likes least, and let those likes and dislikes affect how the NPC interacts with the party members. In a combat encounter, keep the NPC's actions simple and straightforward. Also, look for things that the NPC can do besides fighting. For example, an NPC might stabilize a dying character, guard a prisoner, or help barricade a door.
- If an NPC contributes greatly to the party's success in a battle, the NPC should receive an equal share ofthe XP earned for the encounter. (The characters receive less XP as a
consequence.)
- NPCs have their own lives and goals. Consequently, an NPC should remain with the party only as long as doing so makes sense for those goals.

>They are the protagonists of the adventure.

PCs are supposed to be the focal characters of the adventure. It's pretty rare that they're the actual protagonists.

We're using the milestone lvl rule anyways so exp isn't an issue but all of these other ones I've deffinitely stuck to to the best I can. So no he doesn't take xp, he doesn't do check or solve the players problems, and does have his own goals and backstory so maybe DMPC isn't the right phrase? He's a fairly permanent npc. And his goals are similarly aligned with the parties goal of stopping the cult of tiamat.

To be perfectly honest, if you are the DM making the encounters for the party (and they aren't having a flakey member or randomly stringing along 'friends' who sit in), I have to ask why you are designing encounters that don't do well with the party, inevitably making a DMPC required for play?

So, for whatever reason you respond with for keeping the DMPC, because we all know you will anyway, I'd suggest piling up everything you have for 'DMPC' and sliding it off the table into the trash can. Rebuild from the ground up into a character in the narrative who isn't just a mindless drone to do the party's bidding.

What's the point of backstory and internal goals and objectives if it's nothing more than fluff? Yeah hype this guy who's all speshul and make him a great friend to the whole party... who mechanically behaves in an identical manner to a trained dog.

Create conflict and a story for him to do his own thing with. Have him approach the party of a night's camp before sleep and ask sincerely if they'll help him with his ObligatorySideQuest because of his own StoryReasons, then play it out from there depending on what the party chooses to do, changing the course of over-arcing campaign in only a subtle way.

Have him change tone and actually have a personality, even in something as straight forward as combat.
Fighting cult of tiamat dudes? Taking initiative and trying to do harm to them.
Fighting some random bandits trying to hold up a toll on a back road? Meh. If you take a swing at me, I'll chop your arm off but I'd much rather just ignore you and move on.

So why instead of making a DMPC yo make him extras?

Do you watch Pirates of Caribbean?
Jack, Barbossa, Will are the PC
The black pearl crew are extras

So the DMPC are unlimited hirelings and for each level you gain a named extra (like the one-eyed one, the fatso, the one with the parrot and the two Redcoats)

Well we do have two people that are rather flaky about availability... even after they suggested the time and date for play. But yer right there is an undertone of me wanting to "play with my friends" so to speak. We're a small group of close friends that are all kindof learning together and taking turns running different campaigns. So yeah I'm a bit biased in wanting the character I liked in the game. But I'll deffinitely sit down and reevaluate who he is as a character. And again I appreciate everyone being constructive.

Confused user here
Can you tell me what the difference is between the protagonists and the focal characters?

Well I could see it as meaning the protagonists could be the various factions that may ally with characters as well as the characters themselves. While the characters are simply who the narrative follows regardless of who else may have the same goals. That or he's referencing the possibility of players taking an antagonist role in something like a villain campaign. Not that guy so can't say for sure.

Protagonists actually drive the plot forward. Focal characters are the ones who are in the spotlight the most, whom the audience see the most of.

So take your most bog standard "evil lich is raising an army of undead to scour the world clean of life muwahahahaha, oh no plucky heroes are here to save the day." game.

The lich, the BBEG, is the protagonist. It's his plan that is driving everything forward. If the lich is defeated, the plot is over, and usually the game is as well. Meanwhile, a similar defeat of any individual PC, or even the PCs as a group, won't necessarily have that effect, especially if the GM is open to letting a new band of heroes rise to the fore to stop the lich's plan.

Now, not all games are structured that way, but usually, the villain is the actual protagonist, and the PCs are doing something to stop the villain, and will then live happily ever after should they succeed.

Far be it for any of us to tell you that you're having BadWrongFun. If it works for you and your players, then keep doing it. It doesn't matter if anybody here pipes up and says "Yes. It is horrible. Please proceed with first available suicide method."

Personally though, I'd say the DM has a responsibility to put aside his desire to be a player and get to work on a campaign his players will enjoy, even if he doesn't very much.

By the way, if a book can make someone cry and keep reading it, it's still a damn good book. It's not always about achieving happiness or fun all the time, it's more about engaging narrative. It doesn't have to be bittersweet, but it does have to be consistent and engaging to get a response.

>protagonist
>noun
>the leading character, hero, or heroine of a drama or other literary work.

But are they really the protagonist of the story, if they are never featured? If it's the player characters who drive the plot forward (aka. lead the story, being the lead group of the game), I would say that the group of characters are the protagonists, while the NPCs are extras, not protagonists.

>Protagonists actually drive the plot forward.
Which, in a game, should be the group. Because the group decides where to go and what to do, setting the tone and pace of the game: if the group decided that they don't want to be mercenaries of a kingdom in civil war anymore and instead become bounty hunters in an empire next door, then they are the protagonists of the story, not the king who won't be relevant anymore.

>The lich, the BBEG, is the protagonist.
The villain, in literature and other art forms, is generally called 'antagonist'

>Meanwhile, a similar defeat of any individual PC, or even the PCs as a group, won't necessarily have that effect, especially if the GM is open to letting a new band of heroes rise to the fore to stop the lich's plan.
Not really, the antagonist can still be the same. And because it's Veeky Forums, I'm going to take Jojo as an example: the protagonist is not Dio, in either the first or the third season. It's Jojo and his group of world-savers.

>antagonist
>noun
>An antagonist is someone who opposes someone else.

Oh I deffinitely agree that bittersweet is great and a favorite of mine to read or play through, I'm just no good at writing or planning one like that out but if it occurs I'm certainly for it.

He's being deliberately obfuscating with the proper definition of protagonist. Weasel behaviour to drive melodrama, I suppose.

First and foremost, the 'protagonist' of a narrative, in any format, is the character that establishes an identity with the audience and drives the story (has the most screen time, the character the audience follows through the story, his perspective, and so on).

The secondary definition takes on a more technical meaning. To say the lich is a protagonist is an unfinished statement and doesn't mean anything. To say say the lich is a protagonist 'for the ideology of a uniform society based on stripping away mortal weakness and impurity' is a perfectly sensible statement. He is a protagonist for a particular agenda, even if he gets no screen time and the audience is never aware of his perspective, since the ideology provides insinuation.

Generally speaking, antagonist and protagonist are interchangeable terms depending on which character you identify best with. The party isn't the antagonist because they are fighting against 'the villain', but because they are fighting against 'the protagonist'. It formally doesn't matter one bit if you switch up who gets to wear the protagonist title.

Thank you for clearing that up, user.

>Which, in a game, should be the group.

Not in the vast majority of games, no. It's perfectly possible to make a game where the group do not drive the plot forward, and be thoroughly enjoyable.

>Because the group decides where to go and what to do, setting the tone and pace of the game

Which is not the plot.

> if the group decided that they don't want to be mercenaries of a kingdom in civil war anymore and instead become bounty hunters in an empire next door, then they are the protagonists of the story, not the king who won't be relevant anymore.

Because yes, they're the focal characters. But that strand of plot, of the kingdom in its civil war, which is now proceeding however it would go once the PCs leave, can survive and proceed quite fine without the allegedly protagonist PCs. It's just that you've stopped paying attention to it, because the focus went elsewhere.

>The villain, in literature and other art forms, is generally called 'antagonist'

Not necessarily. For instance, Iago in Othello is definitely a villain, and is definitely the protagonist. He makes everything happen, he has the most lines, but yeah, he's the bad guy. The titular Othello isn't really a protagonist in his own play.

>Not really, the antagonist can still be the same. And because it's Veeky Forums, I'm going to take Jojo as an example: the protagonist is not Dio, in either the first or the third season. It's Jojo and his group of world-savers.

I've not seen the show so I can't comment on it.

>First and foremost, the 'protagonist' of a narrative, in any format, is the character that establishes an identity with the audience and drives the story (has the most screen time, the character the audience follows through the story, his perspective, and so on).

Except the two don't have to and don't always go together. Again, think Iago from Othello. He does have the most screen time, and he definitely drives the plot, but you don't follow his perspective and the audience rarely identifies with him.

>The secondary definition takes on a more technical meaning. To say the lich is a protagonist is an unfinished statement and doesn't mean anything. To say say the lich is a protagonist 'for the ideology of a uniform society based on stripping away mortal weakness and impurity' is a perfectly sensible statement. He is a protagonist for a particular agenda, even if he gets no screen time and the audience is never aware of his perspective, since the ideology provides insinuation.

He is a protagonist of the main plot of the narrative, namely that he's going to conquer the world for vague, evil reasons, unless something stops him. You can't have that plot without the lich. You can have that plot without the heroes who might or might not stop him, and you can definitely have it without individual heroes if heroes come and go.

...

At the most basic level, identifying really only requires that a character is made known to the audience. It's used to refer to how the audience reacts to them. How they favour (or disfavour) them on a personal level. Take the common barman established in various narratives. He can be a character, he can have his own goals and personality, but unless the character is made aware of them, he will only ever be 'the barman', and certainly never a protagonist or an antagonist.

Otherwise, you seem to be insisting that the protagonist of the story is the one who appears to be founded chronologically first. The lich was there first. He already has his plan for world domination and his agenda, some of which are already in play. The heroes 'appear' to pop into existence after this fact solely to vanquish the lich and his ideals (metaphorically for the benefit of the audience), then will likely disappear after the lich business is dealt with.

It doesn't matter who came first. It also doesn't matter that the heroes in this particular context don't reveal any identity beyond 'We're here to kill the lich' and will likely vanish once the conflict is resolved.

I said formally the terms are meaninglessly interchangeable. But in a working narrative, the protagonist is the one you follow. Plain and simple. The plot belongs to neither the antagonist nor the protagonist but exists as a medium for the narrative itself.

>You can't have that plot without the lich.

I posit that the plot involves the conflicting ideals, as well as the lich. Without the heroes, or indeed any antagonist, you no longer have this plot either. Simply a lich who waltzes over the land and does some interesting things with economy and logistics. His agenda is the plot device. The heroes agenda is another plot device. How things unfold, realistic or not, is the narrative.

You can also have a plot without the lich, and with the same heroes, too.

I only use dmpc's as a plot device or as characters who perform roles to boring to ask mps to do.
Contacts, fixers, employers, rivals, villains etc.
If its something the players could do, why aren't they doing it instead?

>At the most basic level, identifying really only requires that a character is made known to the audience.

Which again, doesn't happen with Iago. You never find out in a clear, unmistakable fashion, why he's such a bastard. He just does things.

You certainly get much less characterization than Othello himself gets.

>Otherwise, you seem to be insisting that the protagonist of the story is the one who appears to be founded chronologically first.

No, I'm saying that the protagonist aims to change the status quo. Achilles is the protagonist of the Iliad. Iago is the protagonist of Othello. In our hypothetical, the lich is the protagonist not because he was there first, but because he's seeking to disrupt an otherwise peaceful setting. To make the adventurers the protagonist, you'd need to flip that around: The Lich isn't doing all that much, or at least nothing revolutionary, and the PCs take it into their heads to go crusading into his domain of darkness to bring him down, then they're the protagonists.

> But in a working narrative, the protagonist is the one you follow. Plain and simple.

Not at all. I mean, you barely follow Achilles in the Iliad, but it's hard to claim anyone else could possibly be the protagonist.

> The plot belongs to neither the antagonist nor the protagonist but exists as a medium for the narrative itself.

But still, someone is the prime character for moving that said plot along. In the most traditional of RPG plots, that's usually the villain, not the heroes, who are fundamentally reactive forces.

>I posit that the plot involves the conflicting ideals,

Why? We can have this plot without any conflicting ideals whatsoever, just interest based actions.

>Without the heroes, or indeed any antagonist, you no longer have this plot either.

Untrue. You have an extremely basic, lacking plot, of the lich moving in against no resistance and taking over. Furthermore, the heroes themselves re replaceable in a way that the villain isn't. You can have this hypothetical game go on through PC death and ending with a roster that nobody has the same character they started the game with. If they kill (for a given value of kill that implies permanent destruction) the lich, you often can't just put in a new baddie without closing one plot and opening another.

>You can also have a plot without the lich, and with the same heroes, too.

Sure you can. But it won't be that plot of "save the world from the lich", it'll be some other plot entirely. In a plot in which the heroes save the world from some sort of BBEG, which is still the most common sort of plot you get in RPGs, at least in my anecdotal experience, you can't really have said plot without some BBEG to take the active role. Making a game without such an archvillain is certainly possible, and would probably thrust the PCs into the actual protagonist role, but again, I don't see as many of them.

I don't know, I'd rather say they consistently go with "follow the left wall" or "follow the right wall" whenever asked, maybe I'd roll to see which for the first time then stick with it

DMPC just gets used as a buzzword.
If you stick to those guidelines it doesn't really matter what you refer to them as, it's more to do with your attitude (I personally think people assume DMPC implies a certain level of attachment from the DM, meaning they might fudge rolls or w/e)

>Iago, and why we can't identify with him.
He's set up as someone who feels betrayed by a friend. He's set up as someone who fosters hate for someone he feels has slighted him. "Never find out in a clear, unmistakable fashion, why he's such a bastard." indeed. He 'just' does things. Oh?

>Protagonist aims to change the status quo
Indeed, this definition is more appropriate for an antagonist. One who actively opposes something or someone. In literature, they actively oppose the protagonist.

>but because he's seeking to disrupt an otherwise peaceful setting.
Hark, bait and switch. Nobody, not even you who first mentioned said lich, laid out any kind of declaration for what exists in the setting BEFORE the lich set in motion any kind of plan or motive for change any apparent status quo. You make this up as you go along insomuch as it aids your argumentative case. Shame on you.

Many stories have varying roles of whether or not the protagonist is changing the scene, or is defending against a change in the scene, but this doesn't change whether or not they are, in fact, the protagonist. To say 'focal point' implies there's a story at large and we are simply seeing one particular series of events without. This isn't the case in screen plays or movies or fictional books. What you see IS what you get. Ergo, the focal point is also the protagonist. The series of events that unfold occur as it happens to that particular character defines them as the protagonist, regardless of their stance, motivation, ideal, or action.

>moving the plot along
Nobody moves the plot along. The 'plot' refers to the series of events within a narrative. The storyline. The continuous reactions present in a story. They don't belong to a specific character.

Your last two paragraphs entirely refute each other based on your selective reading comprehension based on "this plot".

If you took out the heroes, you do not have "this plot". Only "another plot".

>He's set up as someone who feels betrayed by a friend. He's set up as someone who fosters hate for someone he feels has slighted him. "Never find out in a clear, unmistakable fashion, why he's such a bastard." indeed. He 'just' does things. Oh?

Yes, given that Othello doesn't seem to have any mention of such events and it doesn't seem particularly in his character, we're left to wonder what this slight or betrayal was, and if it was real or just perceived.

>Indeed, this definition is more appropriate for an antagonist. One who actively opposes something or someone. In literature, they actively oppose the protagonist.

No it isn't. The protagonist actively changes stuff. Achilles decides the course of a war and an enormous amount of interpesronal manevuering. He also opposes the Trojans and Agammemnon, but what makes him the protagonist and them the antagonists is that he's seeking to change against the backdrop.

>. Nobody, not even you who first mentioned said lich, laid out any kind of declaration for what exists in the setting BEFORE the lich set in motion any kind of plan or motive for change any apparent status quo. You make this up as you go along insomuch as it aids your argumentative case. Shame on you.

I referred to the most fundamental, stereotypical, basic RPG plot. I had assumed you were familiar with such; and that yes, according to convention, once the heroes defeat the villain, everyone lives happily ever after.

>To say 'focal point' implies there's a story at large and we are simply seeing one particular series of events without.

Which happens in most, if not all stories. There are pretty much always things going on at the periphery of attention which are not elaborated on.

>This isn't the case in screen plays or movies or fictional books. What you see IS what you get.

You ever read or see little things like Lord of the Rings, or the Iliad, or Waiting for Godot? You very often have stuff going on outside, completely separate stories beyond what you the audience are seeing, and we're focusing on this particular set of events as opposed to other sets of events that could have easily been focused on instead.

> The series of events that unfold occur as it happens to that particular character defines them as the protagonist, regardless of their stance, motivation, ideal, or action.

So then apply this to a work of literature, let's go to the Iliad. If "The series of events that unfold as it happens to that particular character" defines them as the protagonist, who the fuck is the protagonist of the Iliad? Because you have a lot of events that happen to a lot of characters, which I suppose makes them all equally protagonists, and that role is split up among at least a dozne people on opposite sides of numerous conflicts? Your definition is shit.

>Nobody moves the plot along. The 'plot' refers to the series of events within a narrative.

And yet certain characters are far more influential in how the plot proceeds than others. You can't plausibly argue that Therisites is as important to the plot of the Iliad as Patrocles is.

>Your last two paragraphs entirely refute each other based on your selective reading comprehension based on "this plot".

No they don't. "This plot" being defined as the lich's attempt to take over the world can exist in absence of meaningful opposition. It would be a boring plot, but it could still exist. It cannot exist absent a lich to try to take over the world.

>If you took out the heroes, you do not have "this plot". Only "another plot".

And yet many, RPGs do take out the heroes and recycle them, and they tick along just fine, a treatment that rarely happens with BBEGs.

>No it isn't. The protagonist actively changes stuff.
This goes what something I said previously, but I'd like to bring up 2008's Ip Man, since I rewatched it recently and it popped into my mind while thinking about typical protagonists.
Donnie Yen plays the role of a guy who is within the status quo and has to rise and defend a challenge from not one, but two typical antagonists. The first antagonist is encapsulated with the wandering brawlers who look more for the best fight than the best sportsmanship, which the town thrives on. The second antagonist is the japanese invasion and military control of this area of china, which Ip Man eventually helps to rebel against after his defeat of their military commander who throws away his protocol in search of his own selfish desire for a perfect opponent. Each time Ip Man is defending the status quo that is being challenged by outside forces. He is the protagonist. You cannot argue this into the ground and make yourself correct on the matter.

>I referred to... I had assumed... according to convention
I agree. Typical D&D plots tend to go this way. You neither stated nor made it clear you were inferring anything of the sort. Absolute crock of shit. You referred nothing. Don't hide behind lies, now.

>Which happens in most, if not all stories.
Now you're throwing out absolutes as if they're objective. For the fictional, real, narratives I referred to (screen plays, fiction books), what you see IS what you get. The author may have in mind what might consist of a backstory, but until it is written, then it is not yet relevant, and can't be part of a larger story we aren't seeing, since it doesn't exist. There are NOT pretty much always things going on at the periphery of the Harry Potter books, because they were never written. Harry Potter is the protagonist and is also the focal point, not that your earlier implication of larger than character plots existing has any truth to it.

~

This whole argument is fucking stupid.

Protagonist: good guys, main characters, focal characters, whatever you want to call them, they're the leads and their goals and perspectives shape the story.

Antagonist: anyone who acts against the protagonists. This can get fuzzy if there is an equal amount of time spent with these characters as their counterparts, but in those instances you could argue both parties fill both roles depending on your perspective.

This is the common understanding of these words, the plot and their driving it (or lack thereof) has no bearing on the meanings.

>Lord of the Rings
>This particular set of events as opposed to other sets
I'm not sure you're being clear here, but it sounds like you're suggesting Tolkien went back and re-wrote the LOTR trilogy from Saurons perspective and published it in parallel with the first publication, which obviously didn't happen. He certainly did a good job of illustrating a living universe where things were happening whether or not the protagonists wanted them to, or were even aware of. And yet, we are made aware of them within these stories beyond Frodo's perspective. The focus changes regularly throughout.

>I suppose makes them all equally protagonists, and that role is split up among at least a dozne people on opposite sides of numerous conflicts? Your definition is shit.
This is pretty much how it works, dude. Both Frodo and Samwise Gamgee are protagonists. So is Gandalf, yet they exist within the same book. Are you implying that's 'shit', too?

>yet certain characters are far more influential in how the plot proceeds than others.
Yes and no. Absolutely, certain characters have more screen time. Have more interaction with conflict and events in play. The barman in the fellowship has less to do with the plot than Gandalf does, but this doesn't mean Gandalf is 'more influential to the plot proceedings'. The plot IS how things unfold. Gandalf bitch-slapping Saruman isn't him influencing the plot of the two towers, that IS the plot of the two towers. You're caught on a false idea of what plot is.

>No they don't. "This plot" being defined as the lich's attempt to take over the world can exist in absence of meaningful opposition.
Like I said, that isn't "this plot". That is "another plot" that happens to have a lich in it taking over the world. You even stated this in agreement in a previous post, I quote:
"Sure you can. But it won't be that plot of 'save the world from the lich', it'll be some other plot entirely."

You're contradicting yourself.

>Each time Ip Man is defending the status quo that is being challenged by outside forces. He is the protagonist. You cannot argue this into the ground and make yourself correct on the matter.

I haven't seen it, but I can again simply re-assert my argument that no, he is not the protagonist, he is simply the focal character, and that these antagonists are the ones driving the plot along and are thus the real protagonist(s) You haven't really made an argument as to why he's the protagonist other than that we spend a lot of time with him and are apparently supposed to find him sympathetic.

> You neither stated nor made it clear you were inferring anything of the sort.

>So take your most bog standard "evil lich is raising an army of undead to scour the world clean of life muwahahahaha, oh no plucky heroes are here to save the day." game.

Learn to read.

>. For the fictional, real, narratives I referred to (screen plays, fiction books), what you see IS what you get.

That is simply incorrect. Most fictional narratives refer to a larger structure that the audience never sees the whole of, and tries to create at least the illusion that it takes place in a larger setting. They will also include a number of dramatic conventions that structure what the audience perceives. For example, in Elizabethan theater, characters soliloquizing to the audience are being honest to the best of their ability. Hamlet isn't talking about how this time he's really being serious and truthful unlike half the stuff he says to the other characters, you're just supposed to know that already.

>The author may have in mind what might consist of a backstory, but until it is written, then it is not yet relevant, and can't be part of a larger story we aren't seeing, since it doesn't exist.

What? Just because something is non-focal doesn't mean it's backstory, or unwritten, or completely irrelevant, let alone nonexistant. In Lord of the Rings, RoTK, Barliman talks about how bad the year has been since Frodo and crew left, about how bad things have moved in near Bree and they've all slept lightly. It's certainly written, and it certainly existed, and the audience briefly sees it. But no, it's not particularly relevant, which is why the story isn't focusing on it. But these are still events that happened at the periphery of the narrative, and should the author have had different priorities, could have made this the main story.

You generally do have a world that exists beyond the mere focal point of the narrative at hand and other stuff that is going on, which is why the point of focus is important.

>There are NOT pretty much always things going on at the periphery of the Harry Potter books, because they were never written.

But they are written, and stuff happens when Harry and friends aren't around to see it. Bill and Fleur (sp?) fall in love and get married, Snape gnaws his heart out over a dead woman who disliked him, Aberforth fucked a goat, and Hufflepuff students got a magical education. There is stuff going on at the periphery.

user, you're contradicting yourself there. If the leads/focal characters goals and perspectives shape the story, how come you can kill them off en masse and still have a game/story, wheras you can't do the same without the chief villain?

>I'm not sure you're being clear here, but it sounds like you're suggesting Tolkien went back and re-wrote the LOTR trilogy from Saurons perspective and published it in parallel with the first publication, which obviously didn't happen.

No, that is not what I'm saying at all. A

>He certainly did a good job of illustrating a living universe where things were happening whether or not the protagonists wanted them to, or were even aware of. And yet, we are made aware of them within these stories beyond Frodo's perspective. The focus changes regularly throughout.

This is what I'm saying, by mere dint of the fact that the stuff central to the Hobbits progression and the War of the Ring gets a hell of a lot more attention than the troubles around Bree-Town, or the war up in the Woodland Realm, or Ioreth nattering on to her country couisn, or whatever the hell the Lossoth are doing, Sure, the focus does shift a little bit, but there are several clear subjects which get way more attention than others.

>This is pretty much how it works, dude. Both Frodo and Samwise Gamgee are protagonists. So is Gandalf, yet they exist within the same book. Are you implying that's 'shit', too?

I would very much argue against the notion that Gandalf is a protagonist, but you're missing the thrust of my objection.

First off, you've consistently defined protagonist as being the characters whose side you're to root for, who get focused upon. In the Iliad, you get near equal focus on Hector as you do a bunch of the Achaeans, as well as on both Agammemnon and Achilles, who are on different sides of some pretty central conflicts, something you don't get for the LoTR comparison. Furthermore, if you define a protagonist based on the amount of time and attention and “stuff happening” to them, what say, makes Frodo a protagonist but not Gollum?

>The plot IS how things unfold.

No, a plot is a series of events in a narrative which is presented by some author as an interrelated sequence. You don't graduate from a random series of events to a “plot” until you have an author sit down and say “these are related in some fashion”, usually concerned with whatever story he or she wants to tell.

They DO influence the plot, as opposed to being the plot, because the plot is how things are arranged by Tolkien in reality or by the various authors of the Red Book if you accept Tolkien's fictional chain of transmission.

>Like I said, that isn't "this plot". That is "another plot" that happens to have a lich in it taking over the world.

No, “This plot” is the lich's attempt to take over the world

>"Sure you can. But it won't be that plot of 'save the world from the lich', it'll be some other plot entirely."

Learn to read. That statement was in response to this post >> 50148612

Where you said

>You can also have a plot without the lich, and with the same heroes, too.

I.E., the plot is NOT “Lich rises to power and tries to take over the world”, but about the heroes themselves and whatever adventures they go upon.

>TLDR; is a DMPC always horrible even if he's more of a party NPC?
no

This is next level trolling

You admit you've never seen the movie and yet still insist you can refute me on the definition of who is the protagonist. I'm almost certain I could just make a movie up on the spot and you'd still argue with me about who 'the real protagonist is'. I'm not sure what you want other than to keep a run-down argument going for the sake of having someone to argue with. Pull back it definitions if you like.
"1. the leading character or one of the major characters in a play, film, novel, etc."
"2. an advocate or champion of a particular cause or idea."
With the former, only Ip Man can be the protagonist of the movie.
With the latter, BOTH Ip Man and the general of the invading japanese army are protagonists, because they BOTH advocate a particular cause, regardless of how they conflict or mesh.

You've got nothing to bet with. Notice the use of 'leading', as in 'they lead the audience through the story'.

>not correct, creates the illusion of a larger world
Noted this with LOTR, and my statement still stands. What we see is what we get. And it's a well-written example of a seemingly living universe with and beyond the protagonists.

>Bill, Fleur, Snape, Lilly.
These aren't in the periphery. They are served up directly to the reader with in the same novel. The periphery would be a secondary novel that illustrates and elaborates on these events that the primary novels didn't go into as much detail with. JK Rowling didn't do that.

Oh. I actually understand what you're saying now. You mean to say there are many plots within a story and they interact with each other. The plot of a lich trying to take over the world, which exists if there are heroes defying him, and exists if there are no heroes. I get what you're saying now.

I mean, it's total and utter shit. The plot is the series of events. There's not some modular design where you can put all these plots together and have a story. That would be a modular design of template characters who have template agendas whom can be deposited together to create a singular plot within a story. Lich>Heroes>HappyEverAfter. All one plot.
Lich>NoHeroes>SadEverAfter. All one different plot.

>you're contradicting yourself

I'm not. If they die then the point of the plot was their actions being futile in the face of a bigger world. The protagonists are inexorably linked to the point of the whole thing, and has NOTHING to do with whether or not they have any lasting impact on the fictional world they inhabit.

>You admit you've never seen the movie and yet still insist you can refute me on the definition of who is the protagonist.

Based on your description, which has nothing to do with actually proving that your definition is better than mine.

> Pull back it definitions if you like.

>"1. the leading character or one of the major characters in a play, film, novel, etc."
"2. an advocate or champion of a particular cause or idea."

And I would disagree with both of those definitions, preferring to use Flaubert's that the protagonist is the person or interrelated group whose actions are chief in the progression of the plot.

>Noted this with LOTR, and my statement still stands. What we see is what we get. And it's a well-written example of a seemingly living universe with and beyond the protagonists.

And almost every work will both allude to stuff going on outside the focus of the narrative, as well as focus on some parts more than others.

>These aren't in the periphery. They are served up directly to the reader with in the same novel.

And they aren't given the same level of attention or detail that the focus of the books are, namely the adventures that Harry, Ron, and Hermione get up to. Thus, they're peripheral.

>I mean, it's total and utter shit. The plot is the series of events.

No, the plot is not just a series of events, they're a series of events arranged by some sort of guiding intelligence. World War 2 isn't a "plot". It was, however, a series of events that actually happened. If you wanted to write a book or make a movie about WW2, you'd select from a rather large body of material, and present some of it more prominently, some of it less prominently, and other parts not at all. Depending on what you choose to present, you have a plot, or maybe more than one plot. But it's far different than just "a series of events".

>If they die then the point of the plot was their actions being futile in the face of a bigger world.

Unless of course, it's part of an ongoing game in which case the heroes get replaced by other heroes of the same level and the game (and thus story/plot) goes on.

>The protagonists are inexorably linked to the point of the whole thing, and has NOTHING to do with whether or not they have any lasting impact on the fictional world they inhabit.

And that's just it. In most RPGs, any sort of tabletop RPG where the players can die and the game can go on with their replacements, the PCs are NOT inexorably linked to the point of the whole thing, and are thus not really protagonists. It's usually the villain who steps into that role, because the game ends in victory when he or she is killed and can't come back.

They PCs (live or dead or replaced) are inexorably linked becuase without them there is no game. The players are the protagonists of the TTRPG the same way the characters in a novel are the protagonist of the book-- without them there is no story.

They are the point of the whole exercise. None of this is as complicated as you make it out to be. I'm beginning to wonder if you are on the spectrum.

>They PCs (live or dead or replaced) are inexorably linked becuase without them there is no game.

But that's not the PCs. That's the players adopting roles in the game. It doesn't matter who the players play, as long as they play someone.
>The players are the protagonists of the TTRPG the same way the characters in a novel are the protagonist of the book without them there is no story.

And you also don't have a story without characters that are non-protagonists, in the general course of things. You can't claim that mere essentially to the narrative is necessary to be a protagonist. (And that's before you get to weird things like Waiting for Godot, or The Gods Themselves, where it's not clear at all who the protagonist is)

>They are the point of the whole exercise.

Yes, they are. Hence, the focal characters.

>None of this is as complicated as you make it out to be. I'm beginning to wonder if you are on the spectrum.

No, it's quite simple. I don't know why you guys keep just repeating "Nuh uhh, you're wrong" while making such weak objections. But if I'm on the spectrum, I guess every literary critic and person who reads their works is also autistic. We must comprise a good percentage of the population.

I'm not really going to try providing more material to prop up this useless argument since you'll 'disagree' with definitions outright. No point.

But, user. If there is no source material to allude to, then it isn't technically an allusion. That is to say, you can't allude to the ninth Harry Potter novel, because it doesn't exist. But you can still write a fiction novel and have a character give off the appearance of alluding to 'a' ninth Harry Potter book. Just my small nitpick.

>Not as much detail or attention, so periphery.
Eh, no. In the late part of the story, the focus is placed upon snape and lily at specific parts of the book. It's not a case of the focus still being on Harry (or Ron, or Hermione) and snape and lily's past still floating past. No, the focus is very properly on how snape lost his childhood friendship over his life choices and adoration of the dark arts. If there is a focus, and the focus changes switches to 'it', then 'it' is not part of the periphery, rather 'it' is part of the focus. NOT periphery.

Err... Well, World War 2 kinda is a plot, user. Whether or not you've managed to put it on paper in chronological order and make it legible is besides the point. It is a series of events that - what was it you said? - 'interrelates to each other'. Of course World War 2 is a plot. Perhaps not strictly literary, but you can plot things without writing a narrative.

...

I leave to go rework a character and come back to this shit fest... holy shit... lol