The BBEGs

The purpose of a BBEG is to have a recurring character that the GM can hang a recurring narrative around - so if the PCs don't have any interesting story going on with them, or the PCs get killed during the course of the quest and new ones introduced, there's always this single point the narrative of the campaign can hang off of.

Of course, this does mean the GM has to provide means for the PCs, and thus the players, to find out and get entangled in the narrative of the BBEG, but that's a lot easier than say getting some dungeoncrawl gamist players to support a recurring narrative while they're looting corpses for their class-optimal dieties and the barbarian, wizard or bard player keeps chewing the scenery and trying to fuck the furnishings.

Hey maybe you should try playing Strike! It's probably more your sort of game.

>Fun
Ugh.

>Ugh
Ugh

>adventure
Ugh.

>the
Ugh.

>ugh
Ooga?

>BBEG

Guess how I know you're a fag?

Gaydar!

well fuck this thread then..

I didn't realize there was a line for people to show their disgust.

Begone fiend, and never darken out towels again!

If you play an evil campaign, there would be the BGGG, so there's that

BGGG you say?

>Ooga?
Ooga chaka.

youtu.be/PJQVlVHsFF8

looking forward to the death of the Ugh meme

Sure, if it was a /m/anly game.

When people say "BBEG" they usually mean some kind of Darth Vader or Sauron-style figure who directly opposes the party, and the plot revolves around stopping him in some capacity. You can have recurring antagonists.

Would you consider the Cigarette Man from the X-Files a BBEG?

As long as it's attached to people not liking "BBEG," it's likely not going anywhere for a while.

Likely, it will end up mutating a bit though. Like , or in the other direction,

>Darth Vader

This is why "BBEG" really sucks, because people get confused by it because "Big Bad Evil Guy" doesn't say anything important.
Palpatine is the "BBEG." Vader is the central villain, but Palpatine is the guy ultimately in charge and making all the plans.

Vader would be Protoman, Palpatine would be Dr. Wiley.

This is just semantics. My point refers to a hypothetical steel donut NPC thematically similar to Vader. Not Vader himself.

Besides, the term is ancient Buffyspeak for whoever is the bad guys' observable head honcho. That's pretty much Vader most of the time you see him in the movies.

A story doesn't have to be limited to a single BBEG though, and it can still make sense because it's a moniker given to the "end boss" tier of villain who has the agency to carry out their evil plans while still retaining minions under their control. If Palpatine had bitten the dust earlier on before Luke had a chance to bring his father back over, Vader would probably have still carried out his original plans and continued to dominate the galaxy.

Considering how many "Top Villains of All Time" lists Vader consistently places on, I have no issue calling him a BBEG regardless of who's "above" him, and I think most people would agree except those difficult posters being intentionally pedantic to get people to stop using the term.

>A story doesn't have to be limited to a single BBEG though
Yeah, actually, it does. You can have multiple villains, but one main villain. If you're just saying BBEG is interchangeable with villain, you're making it a pointlessly long phrase for a very common word.

You can have a BBED, if we're sticking to tvtropes names.

>ancient Buffyspeak
>tvtropes names

No thanks.

I'm just saying, Big Bad Duumvirate is a thing, so is Big Bad Ensamble.

>Ugh, popular phrases that originated in the 1990s are so cringe-worthy!

>popular

Really? I've only seen unpopular people use it in generally unpopular groups. Though, whether it's popular or not doesn't really stop it from being cringe-worthy, and it being from the 1990s only exasperates that.

Vader's The Dragon, technically speaking.

Dragon is the big evil thing just before the FINAL evil villain who's the originator of all the evil the dragon may have personally perpetrated.

The key difference is that defeating the dragon won't really end the plot of the story - say if Vader had died at hte end of episode 4, the empire and the emperor would have still been there for the rebels to fight, but the death of the emperor and large part of the imperial fleet in episode 6 ends the empire fairly decisively.

Similarly, in Chrono Trigger, there's generally a Dragon for each time period, but the story, the plot of the game, isn't over until Lavos is dead.

Note there that Lavos is the BBEG, and throughout the game the dragons are ones with plans and plots and Lavos just sort of IS, which is an inversion of how the usual relationship between dragon and BBEG - the dragon is often something of a force of nature that the BBEG is using to further their ends, but not the crux of their plans.

>Considering how many "Top Villains of All Time" lists Vader consistently places on, I have no issue calling him a BBEG regardless of who's "above" him
This.

>Palpatine is the "BBEG." Vader is the central villain, but Palpatine is the guy ultimately in charge and making all the plans
This confusion and argument is not dependent on the shorthand term used, you shit rooster.

>people not liking "BBEG" derailing threads by shitposting

Ugh.

If any of the four words that composed BBEG contributed directly towards its definition, it might be more clear.

"Main," "Central", "Primary", and "Final" are all pretty direct, just like "Villain", "Boss", or "Antagonist" are pretty clear. But, BBEG is a weird "us geeks" joke where a big, bad, and evil guy may very well not be the BBEG, and the BBEG may very well not be big, bad, evil, or a guy.

Beyond this obvious bit that hardly needs saying, the central problem seems to be that different people use BBEG to mean different things, often assuming that everyone is sharing their personal definition, though some people are using it in very different manners, to the point where characters may or may not be the or a BBEG depending on which definition is being used.

But, overall, the joke really has faded. Does anyone still find "big bad evil guy" amusing anymore? Or is it just a few people's bad habit/pointless jargon/inside joke?

>derailing a thread discussing BBEG by discussing BBEG.

>I can see people on Veeky Forums

Have you registered yourself with the SHRA?

Have you registered yourself as a sex offender? Quit it and clean your hard drive, you sick freak.

Joke's on you, that's all perfectly legal in my state as long as they aren't MALE poultry.

>Beyond this obvious bit that hardly needs saying, the central problem seems to be that different people use a term to mean different things, often assuming that everyone is sharing their personal definition, though some people are using it in very different manners, to the point where characters may or may not be the or an example depending on which definition is being used.
People poorly using a shorthand term that is intended to reference a primary antagonist has no bearing on the fact that a known four character reference term is preferable when communicating with text than a longer or more obscure or esoteric term.

>But, overall, the joke really has faded.
BBEG was never a joke.
It was a concept phrased humorously condensed into shorthand that became useful.
That's it.
Nothing to get upset over.

Now, the joke that is a wasted human life spending its time deliberately ruining the discussions of others to wage a campaign against random strangers using a term they don't like?
I agree, that joke has definitely gotten old, and yet hasn't matured.
Party on.

>known four character reference term is preferable when communicating with text than a longer or more obscure or esoteric term.

You're exaggerating how well known it is, and how many people agree with your personal definition of "primary antagonist." Effectively, it could very well be you who is poorly using it, especially since "primary" is not really appropriate and doesn't fully apply to either how it was used in Buffy, how it was used preceding that show, the tvtropes definition, or really how broadly the term has detiorated to today.

It's a particularly awful example of terrible jargon.

>BBEG was never a joke.
It just was never a funny one.

And, if you are being deliberately ruined in this discussion, that's just because you're hoping to somehow say that a poor joke that's carried like a sickly sacred cow by a few people is still worth carting around.

Do it if you must, but don't feel so bad when people disapprove of you using such an awkward phrase.

>And, if you are being deliberately ruined in this discussion,
The conversation OP started is being ruined.
I am fine.
Thank you for your concern.

>you're hoping to somehow say that a poor joke that's carried like a sickly sacred cow by a few people is still worth carting around.
I am not a spokesman for the term, I am a spokesman against an asshole who's hatred of a stupid term is unfettered by sanity.

There may be more than one person that thinks the term should fall out of use.
There may be a large amount of people that feel that way.
But no matter how many people on Veeky Forums hate the term, more people hate assholes who, whether sincerely or just trolling, derail threads and post off-topic everytime BBEG gets mentioned.

I'm gonna shut up about this now.
Feel free to make one more comment about how I'm in love with "BBEG" or some similar fictional nonsense, then do the decent thing and shut the fuck up.

>Do we really need to have a BBEG in every campaign ? can there be a really good game without one ? Does the whole point of fun and adventure only revolve around a BBEG ?
The adventure needs a primary goal that the group is unified over.
It absolutely doesn't need to be one antagonist.
One idea could be building up a community, like your home village or pirate crew.
But having one thing to work against together is a great unifying force in fiction and real life.
Having it be some evil antagonist that's easy to hate makes the adventure smooth and relatable.
You might have trouble getting everyone on board with your game if your goal was something insane, like fighting a war against a particularly awful example of terrible jargon.

>But no matter how many people on Veeky Forums hate the term, more people hate assholes who, whether sincerely or just trolling, derail threads and post off-topic everytime BBEG gets mentioned.

This doesn't really seem to be true. I think you really seem to just be trying to use argumentum ad populum, however without even any real evidence to support your fallacy.

>I am a spokesman against an asshole who's hatred of a stupid term is unfettered by sanity.

Then you are a spokesperson against a phantom. Not liking the term is perfectly rational, even if it is in part a matter of opinion, and there seems to be a fair amount of people who disapprove of the term.

It's not like it's a great phrase or anything. This makes it very hard for you to support your "Behead anyone who insults BBEG" campaign without inadvertently increasing the number of people who become more vocal about it.

>You're exaggerating how well known it is
Not that user, but...

Sshhh!
You'll disturb the phantom!

It's still hardly common. Finding it online is hardly a persuasive token.

The imaginary singular entity you think is the only person who doesn't agree with you?

I once tried to run a (solo) campaign without a BBEG. It ended up being just the PC faffing about with no real purpose. I think a BBEG, or at least the threat of a grand conflict, is neccessary. If you can concentrate it into a single person or group of individuals, that's the best. I'm trying that in a campaign now and it works out a lot better.

>It ended up being just the PC faffing about with no real purpose. I think a BBEG, or at least the threat of a grand conflict, is neccessary.
Well, imo a single central conflict is definitely needed, otherwise you get that purposeless faffing.
It's a lot easier for it to be a BBEG whether you imagine that as a singular entity or as a collective of individuals.

It is possible to have the central conflict come from something else, such as specifically protecting a selection of innocents from a variety of attacks.
Although, that scenario can be hard to run without it falling into a boring and trite "villain of the week" territory.

Of course, if a bunch of unconnected anatagonists continue to attack the same innocents over the same thing, over and over, it hardly matters at that point if they're separate people or not, as they are functioning as one BBEG.

...