Is It Okay When The GM Is The Main Character?

Over the years I have noticed that many people seem to see a red flag when a GM has their own character, or characters, as the center of the roleplay. I admit, I'm the same way when I see it happening. But, I don't think it's always a bad sign.

I'm usually very content with playing characters who have a supporting role in a story myself. The sidekick, the henchman, roles like that.

I want to know, why do you think so many aren't fond of GMs that do this? What are some examples of it working out? What are some examples of it making the roleplay experience a bad one?

And, lastly, have you yourself ever done it? Why? Why not?

It heavily depends on the RP and the premise of the RP. Some times it may work, in others it won't. I once had a Teen Titans themed RP that I GMed with a couple of other friends and we all had our own characters. This worked simply because the GMs for this RP was mainly there for keeping the rules in check and helping organize different sub-plots that the RP might have. The main reason it worked was because the theme was practically "Have fun" more so than to tell a story.

For an RP like the one I'm currently making, it's premise would be more focused on telling a story of sorts in a fun fashion. As such rather than having a PC that I'd play throughout the RP, I'd instead have several NPCs to control in order to help move the plot. There are also such things as a central NPC of importance, which may be someone with high authority giving orders or someone who is simply there to gather the other players, guide them to their main goals and help them (if needed) accomplish their own objectives.

The issue solely comes when the GM's RP's premise is solely built around them rather than an actual goal. They won't have a central NPC but rather a PC that'll always have the primary focus of the RP or by accomplishing the objectives and goals by themselves or by being capable in handling situations by themselves. These characters are practically mary sues and are solely there to feed the GM's own ego rather than to either have fun or tell a story.

EDIT:

Also in addition, I'd also like to state that in the other two formats, players were always the primary focus. For the first it is every player having fun telling whatever story they want, even the GM is included as they give up power of having a focused story for fun. For the second it is most ideal that the players take charge and commit the decisions and actions that may change the foundation of the RP's story or at least, have consequence later on in the story. The players in both influence the story. If they're not capable in influencing the story and only the GM is capable in doing such, then it is most likely that the GM is creating the RP for their own ego, not to tell a story or to have fun with the other players.

Drakel covered the goal being the MC, which is great. However, I don't entirely agree. What I personally found preferable, is to have the GMPC not compete with the other characters in certain areas, and really, really need the other characters as a result. As a practical example; I had a GMPC once who hired the other PCs as mercenaries to join her on her adventure. However, my GMPC was not a good fighter. She was not an experienced survivalist. She didn't know how to summon spirits or use magic. She was rich and had an ambition, which in turn would throw into a means for people that did have those skills, into a wilderness that would, under any other circumstances, be madness to wander into. As such, her goals aligned with other PC's their goals. Technically, she was the premise. However her being the initiator and facilitator, didn't override other characters their goals nor the value of their skill sets.

That said, 9/10 times I don't like the GMPC being the MC and I tend to avoid roleplays that do it.

For me it definitely greatly depends on the roleplay, and the GM in question. Generally speaking I don't think the GM should be the one ICly driving the central story due to the simple fact that they're the one who knows where the story is going, what's around the corner, and if they're not careful can make biased calls without even meaning to. I know I personally would be stuck warring between "could my character have figured this out on my own, or am I over-crediting their cleverness based on what *I* know?". It is my belief that GMs should be pulling the strings to try and orchestrate a story, while allowing the players the freedom to DRIVE it.

I know I was once a player in a very large and long running roleplay called the Orsa of Terminus, and I tend to be a very driven player. So it didn't take long for multiple characters of mine to wind up in positions of influence, but one moreso than all the rest. She was leading an entire group of players. The GM left and gave the roleplay to me.

What to do?

I had my character die to save the other characters, creating a space for another player to step up into that role, while also forever changing the course of the story. I never once regretted my decision to do that.

That said, the structure of a roleplay, the size of it, and how close/compatible the players are can really impact whether a GM can effectively also be your main character(s). I find that larger more open-ended roleplays (like our Epic Roleplays here on Storyteller's Circle) are more adaptable because they feature many main characters. A GM isn't stealing the spotlight from all the players by taking a heavy part in one of many stories. IE in the Chronicles of the Omniverse roleplay, a GM isn't allowed to make rulings on their own stuff, so a GM is free to step into the story as a player in one area, while trusting the other GMs to handle GM matters there.

Conversely small roleplays of close friends can function quite well with a GM as your main character if your GM is genuinely invested in writing a story and all the players can equally sway and influence the direction of the story.