The title came from something my friend said when we were discussing the structure of tabletop games as opposed to novels.

When you're writing a story, in general the best way to do it is to choose one character and make her the focus. She's the driving force behind the plot, she undergoes the character development, she's who we see in the denouement, getting what she's earned. Without hyperbole, the story revolves around her.

As a result, when we create our own characters, it's easy to see them as the "main" character, and occasionally become upset at the GM for not giving us the screen time we deserve. But that's a false impression.

Think about Batman. In his own book, naturally, the story revolves around him and his choices. There's never a solution he isn't a part of, to whatever degree the story demands. We read a Batman comic for Batman.

However, in the Justice League, Batman is just part of the team. An integral part, indispensable even, but he's there to fill a role. One role, a single role. There are other parts of the team for the other roles, so it's not Batman all the time. Sometimes it's Superman, sometimes it's Wonder Woman, sometimes it's Green Lantern. In this case, the focus is on the group acting as a group, tacking some outside threat.

Character development can still happen, but it's important to note it remains the B-plot at all times. Think about the Justice League cartoon, the budding romance between Hawkgirl and GL. Sure, it eventually drove a few episodes' worth of stories, but it only really worked to increase the tension. The romance part was still handled secondary to the crash-boom excitement of the main story.

So it should be at the tabletop. We, as players, have to remember that even if we're Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, we're still just part of the ensemble cast. Maybe you want to make your character a jack of all trades, but that won't necessarily make him more useful -- instead, it may even hurt the team in the long run.

And as GMs, we have to remember to keep the story that involves the whole group as the primary story. Maybe one of your players has an incredible backstory that you want to use, but rather than focus on it, make it the cause of some problem the group as a whole has to face. Give it additional meaning for that one player, but keep the whole group in the loop.

What do you guys think? Do you have similar philosophies, or have you ever run afoul of the "main character" issue, either as a player or a GM?

When a storyline comes up that is tailored for a specific character (or even one that the players feel suits one of us best), without having to say anything, the rest of us make ourselves supporting cast for that episode. Now that I think about it I'm quite proud of that - none of us try to hog the limelight. Instead, each actively tries to make the "lead" character shine - they're the team leader that week.

With Star Wars, I've been focusing on one character all along. But I don't dwell on it, and certainly don't tell anyone. Assisting with the story may seem trite, but the other players are genuinely enjoying their time in the lime light.

More than anything else, I feel that the crew needs to rely on each other to succeed. That's what keeps them together, and that's what keeps the story together.

The thing I love about Obligation is that it gives you already-made hooks for making each character the 'featured' character in a story.

I've been building out backstories for the characters' Obligations in our party, and finding ways for them to work together, or potential ideas for how they could be resolved in the future. It would give each of the characters their own sequence of stories where they were the 'main' character, but with the knowledge that next week another character might be featured more.

I absolutely agree with this philosophy. I think in addition knowing the people around your table is helpful as well, to have a good idea of what their personal hooks are. Obligation is a great system but knowing what buttons to push on your players personally to make them own a mission is even more productive I find.

I make them do homework and before they put pencil to paper or spend xp I asked them to simply write up a character idea and background without even considering the rules. Increases ownership and doesn't spoil the soup with too much nonsense about skills and talents and such.

For good or bad, I tend to focus more on the characters whose players have spoken to me outside of the game about their characters. Their past, their personalities, and most importantly where they would like to go with their characters. The more I am familiar with the characters, the more I have to work with.

For good or bad, I tend to focus more on the characters whose players have spoken to me outside of the game about their characters. Their past, their personalities, and most importantly where they would like to go with their characters. The more I am familiar with the characters, the more I have to work with.

I just read this thread right after sending my GM an email. You can tell that he rewards players investment and encourages others to send him emails if the characters have downtime between sessions.

Another thing he does is after a month or so of missions, he makes a one shot for each character to "flesh" out the characters story. Our table also will take the backseat and allow that player to shine. It really is a good time.