Why a Story Needs a Primary Antagonist (and how to find them)

[Story_Marc]

Newest video after taking a 1 week break to avoid burnout. Next up, I'm finally discussing plotting as I've wanted. At any rate, hope this one helps out!

 

[RepresentingWrath]

 

[RepresentingDesire]

I respectfully disagree, sadly I do not have currently the time to watch the video but I still want to share my thoughts.

I agree (lol) that a story is based upon conflict and the idea that a converging big conflict that drives the narrative, both thinks I would say make a good story, but the idea that only an antagonist (as a creature, like a human) can be that central conflict is what I think is wrong, Not to mention that the former statements are to my best knowledge a part of this era's style of fictional literature.

 

[expentio]

Hmm, my stories are going well, and this without an actual antagonist. Rather, it's usually a general situation of conflict.
Particular, I'd mention here my story Formicea (as it's the only book I basically completed). While there is a war in the background, the enemies are at best just that: background. On the front stand two very different empires that negotiate about their coexistence, while the war is the leverage one has in those negotiations over the other. While there was once one that could be considered an antagonist, that one had at most influence on 5-10% of the story. Neither was there much of a buildup, nor was the conflict ever the focus. I think having an interesting story to tell is sufficient. You don't need conflict if it can still give an interesting experience to the readers.

 

[Story_Marc]

I respectfully disagree, sadly I do not have currently the time to watch the video but I still want to share my thoughts.

I agree (lol) that a story is based upon conflict and the idea that a converging big conflict that drives the narrative, both thinks I would say make a good story, but the idea that only an antagonist (as a creature, like a human) can be that central conflict is what I think is wrong, Not to mention that the former statements are to my best knowledge a part of this era's style of fictional literature.

I'd discuss here, but I dislike when people care more about being heard than they do engaging with the material first. I find it tends to just be surface level reactions instead of seeking a true discussion.

 

[Madmcgee]

Hmmm... I did watch some of the video, got to about half of it.
And, while I agree a singular and overarching 'big bad' can be interesting, I've never found it necessary.

Hmm, my stories are going well, and this without an actual antagonist. Rather, it's usually a general situation of conflict.
Particular, I'd mention here my story Formicea (as it's the only book I basically completed). While there is a war in the background, the enemies are at best just that: background. On the front stand two very different empires that negotiate about their coexistence, while the war is the leverage one has in those negotiations over the other. While there was once one that could be considered an antagonist, that one had at most influence on 5-10% of the story. Neither was there much of a buildup, nor was the conflict ever the focus. I think having an interesting story to tell is sufficient. You don't need conflict if it can still give an interesting experience to the readers.

Much like Expentio, most of my stories don't have a primary antagonist. It's situations, interactions between characters, emotions and oftentimes psychological inner turmoil that drives my plot, and so far, I've found decent success for being fairly new to SH.

And yeah, sometimes an arc in a story 'has' an enemy or oppositional character as a focal point, but they're usually playing a very small role in the grand scheme of things.

Big bads are cool and all, but there's plenty of popular and well done media out there that don't have them as a central focus.

 

[Golden_Hyde]

I think this can be narrowed down on who are you asking this to. To me, it's between a "yes" and "no."

Yes, a story does need an antagonist, but at the same time in a different set of plots, no, you don't need one.

An antagonist is only required if you're into drama, action fantasy or in a game like world, where you'll constantly get scrutinized by the one who opposes you, like Vergil in Devil May Cry series; or someone who legitimately wanted to brought your down, face on ground; or the manifestation of Demon Lord in general.

But if you just want a simple, straightforward plot such as a cookie cutter romance or a simple, lighthearted adventure, no, you don't need it.

 

[melchi]

I think that this might not apply if someone isn't going for a "hero's journey" type outline.

Yeah, there can be a big bad that is pulling the strings and there is catharsis in defeating that big bad. Most stories work like that but not all. And in serialized web novels such stories are really common.

I can give some examples: Runesmith, in the first arc, getting out of the thumb of his family is the goal. His dad is cold to him, all but one of his siblings are cruel to him. Eventually he sets out of his own, gets accosted by a likely-bribed guard that was getting frustrated on him not crying like a kid and going home.

Is the dad the primary antagonist? No.

Is the mean family the primary antagonist? No.

Does getting free from the family wrap up that arc nicely? Yes.

But the real premise is becoming a powerful runesmith. To do that the MC needs levels, knowledge, resources, treasure, victories in battle. In most LITrpg type progression stories whoever might be a primary antagonist usually is only that way for an arc. These long running serials tend to be more about becoming so powerful that the MC stands secure so the lack of power is the true primary antagonist.

Yeah, maybe some might have the opinion that is a bad way to write a story. But success speaks for itself.

Runesmith for example is one of the top 10 most popular fictions both here and on royal road.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

The background is not as distracting, but the music is - and you sound a bit more laid back than usual, almost tranquilized here...

One of my stories relies on a bit of misdirection - the apparent primary antagonist is just an agent of another, who, in turn is the pawn of a third (who is trying to prevent a fourth from being a problem but doesn't think he CAN - and is using the other antagonists and the heroes to try and find loopholes)... In a sense, a prophecy is the antagonist rather than a specific character.

But I have seen successful stories where the primary antagonist is a force rather than a being - a natural disaster (Earthquake, Twister), Death itself as an obsessed force of nature (the Final Destination Franchise), even man-made disasters (The Towering Inferno, The Poseidon Adventure) these often have human antagonists as well, but they complicate the story rather than creating it.

The BEST stories have a single, sentient antagonist (even if he never really DOES anything, like Sauron in Lord of the Rings).

Oh, and The Hobbit is kind of a serial story - Smaug is the goal originally, but it is really a series of shorter stories that happen in sequence, with a shifting primary antagonist (The Trolls, then Gollum, then the Ettercaps, then Smaug, and finally Thorin himself in the Battle of Five Armies... though in a sense, the REAL Primary Antagonist there is Bilbo, who is also the MC, but torn at almost every step (first between a life of comfort, then about what he has to do just to survive, then about claiming his due rewards and the trouble THAT leads to).

 

[FRWriter]

Respectfully disagree. Your story does not even need antagonists at all. Many stories allow the reader to self-insert, and many readers do not care about a strong, influential antagonist; they just want to see progression and exploration.

 

[Story_Marc]

The background is not as distracting, but the music is - and you sound a bit more laid back than usual, almost tranquilized here...

One of my stories relies on a bit of misdirection - the apparent primary antagonist is just an agent of another, who, in turn is the pawn of a third (who is trying to prevent a fourth from being a problem but doesn't think he CAN - and is using the other antagonists and the heroes to try and find loopholes)... In a sense, a prophecy is the antagonist rather than a specific character.

But I have seen successful stories where the primary antagonist is a force rather than a being - a natural disaster (Earthquake, Twister), Death itself as an obsessed force of nature (the Final Destination Franchise), even man-made disasters (The Towering Inferno, The Poseidon Adventure) these often have human antagonists as well, but they complicate the story rather than creating it.

The BEST stories have a single, sentient antagonist (even if he never really DOES anything, like Sauron in Lord of the Rings).

Oh, and The Hobbit is kind of a serial story - Smaug is the goal originally, but it is really a series of shorter stories that happen in sequence, with a shifting primary antagonist (The Trolls, then Gollum, then the Ettercaps, then Smaug, and finally Thorin himself in the Battle of Five Armies... though in a sense, the REAL Primary Antagonist there is Bilbo, who is also the MC, but torn at almost every step (first between a life of comfort, then about what he has to do just to survive, then about claiming his due rewards and the trouble THAT leads to).

Environmental antagonists still do best with others along the way to do heavy lifting. As I once addressed long ago, and broke down how, because I care about the craft of actually pulling stuff off.

I address what you bring up with #2. Regardless, I never said they create the conflict, so that's irrelevant, especially in Threatened Existence stories.

And fixing this up now before I go to sleep, since what I previously wrote was far too disorganized.

I think many replies are responding to a surface-level interpretation, not the actual argument I made.


I never said stories require a villain or a singular “Big Bad.” That’s not the point. What I did say—and what keeps getting missed—is this:

For a story’s conflict to land, it needs focus. And focus usually means identifying a primary antagonist—not as a trope, but as a function.

A primary antagonist isn’t always a person. It can be a force, a belief, an institution, or a relationship dynamic. But to create a compelling payoff, that conflict needs:

• Escalation
• Convergence
• Resolution

That requires one opposing force to matter more than the rest when we hit the story’s climax. Otherwise, everything you’ve built disperses. It’s tension with no gravitational pull.

---

Let’s put this differently:

• If your story has multiple antagonists, which one pressures the hero the most?
• Which one forces them to make the hardest decisions?
• Which one embodies the central problem they’re struggling with?
• Which one ties the themes and plot threads together?

That’s your primary antagonist. Even if they’re not always visible, even if they’re not a villain, that’s what I’m pointing to.

---

Now, to address some of the counterexamples people brought up:

• “My story has no antagonist and works just fine.” Sure, on the surface. But what’s really creating pressure? What’s the friction the character is pushing against? Even in “peaceful” or progression-based stories, something often shapes the hero’s path -- social hierarchy, personal limits, or unmet desire. That’s functional antagonism. I’m asking: is it converging toward something, or just floating?
• “My story’s about inner conflict.” Great. But even internal battles benefit from externalization. Look at BoJack Horseman: the real fight is with himself, but climactic moments feature externalized representations (Herb, Sarah Lynn, and others) giving form to those inner demons. The pressure becomes tangible. That’s how we get catharsis.
• “Disasters and environments can be the antagonist.” True. But notice what happens in those stories: they often have representatives who embody human failure, hubris, or incompetence. Even Final Destination gives us a pattern to engage with, usually a final survivor test. It’s about structure, not genre.
• Sauron doesn’t do much, but he’s the face of the threat. Exactly. He’s the symbolic and narrative center. And Gollum, not Sauron, is the personalized antagonist in the final moment, because he embodies the ring’s corruption. So even there, we converge.

---

So what am I really saying?


I’m not prescribing a trope. I’m describing a storytelling principle:

Narrative tension works best when it builds toward a focused, personalized, and embodied source of resistance.

That’s what a primary antagonist is -- not necessarily a character, but a structural role. Ignore it, and you risk your story lacking emotional weight when it matters most.

---

If people really want to push back, I’d encourage them to look at their own stories and ask:

• What makes the climax satisfying?
• What made the stakes escalate?
• Was there a face (literal or metaphorical) to the conflict?
• And did all the narrative energy pull toward that point?

Because if not, maybe that’s why the story doesn’t hit as hard as it could.

 

[FRWriter]

I think if you follow those rules and try to imitate others, you'll most likely fail.
If you have something funny or interesting to tell, write whatever you want. Also I don't really think LotR or City hunter are even remotely relevant for SH authors and SH readers. Coming up with stereotypical antagonists who appear again and again, and everyone knows "So there will be this big fight at the end" is the most cringy and outdated concept ever. Thankfully, most webnovels have gotten rid of that boring concept. Sure, you can expect this in most TV series and books, but if we are talking novels on SH, then this is simply an outdated concept.

 

[Story_Marc]

I think if you follow those rules and try to imitate others, you'll most likely fail.
If you have something funny or interesting to tell, write whatever you want. Also I don't really think LotR or City hunter are even remotely relevant for SH authors and SH readers. Coming up with stereotypical antagonists who appear again and again, and everyone knows "So there will be this big fight at the end" is the most cringy and outdated concept ever. Thankfully, most webnovels have gotten rid of that boring concept. Sure, you can expect this in most TV series and books, but if we are talking novels on SH, then this is simply an outdated concept.

You're the reason I just rewrote the above. You're confusing principle with trope.

What I laid out isn’t “imitating others” or clinging to outdated formulas. It’s about why stories work—not just what they look like.

You mention disliking stereotypical antagonists that “appear again and again” and lead to an obvious fight at the end. Totally valid critique—but that’s a shallow execution problem, not a flaw in the structural principle itself.

I’m not advocating for “insert big bad, cue final battle.” I’m saying:

Narrative tension needs a focal point.
Whether it’s a person, a force, a flaw, or an ideology—it helps when there’s a center of resistance the story builds toward. That’s what gives a climax its weight.

If you don’t have that? You risk your conflict feeling like noise instead of momentum.

And regarding “SH readers don’t care about this”… I’d argue that’s exactly why a lot of webfiction fizzles out.

When nothing feels like it’s building to something specific—when there’s no clear source of meaningful opposition—readers disengage.
Progression slows. Stakes blur. They might like a few chapters, but don’t feel anything in the long run.

So no, this isn’t about being “traditional” or chasing a blockbuster format. It’s about narrative gravity.

If you’ve got a better way of delivering focused, escalating conflict that culminates in something emotionally resonant without some form of convergence, I’d honestly love to hear it. However, writing off the concept as “outdated” misses the point entirely. It's just going "Nu uh, I can do whatever I want, webfiction" instead of engaging with the actual material or presenting a true counterargument based on trying to be a better writer for your audience.

Though I will also add, as I maintain, you are free to do as you please. If you can get what you want, I say go for it. This stuff I put together is meant for those who are always asking questions on how to do things that don't get concrete answers from people.

 

[FRWriter]

I really respect your effort in creating these videos, but honestly, it is just not true for webnovel authors. Check out the most successful stories on SH, WN, and RR, and you'll probably notice that everything you said does not apply. Central antagonists are so rare, and when they are present, it does nothing to make your store more beloved by readers. Most webnovels are influenced by Japanese/Chinese stories, and in those, the concept of a western-style antagonist rarely applies. The whole concept of "progression," which is extremely popular, stands in stark contradiction to a central antagonist.

Everything you said is your opinion and these points are as old as time. They've already been discussed 1000 times by old-school authors. I stand by my point that if you truly believe these points, you don't know your audience, in this case, readers on SH.

I like how much effort you put into your videos, but I really have to question your understanding of web novels. Anyway, your video does not even properly reference webnovels—it's simply bad advice for upcoming authors that may cause them to fall into a trap. Things like: "Shit now I need to add an antagonist and think about what he does when protagonist does x, and how strong is he currently, blablabla" leads to people altering their stories, just to satisfy stupid outdated concepts.

I can pick any popular movie, book and find multiple concepts in them and then use them as examples for why this concept is so important.
I can then find 1000 negative examples with those concepts as well. You say it is about execution. I agree! However, it is not about how well that stupid concept was executed, but it's mostly about the main plot. Anyway, as long as you can't give me any evidence for your claims related to webnovels, it is simply your own opinion. What do your readers have to say about that? Did an antagonist make your own books more popular? These are the questions I'd like to have answered.

 

[unlaumy]

This reminds me of Shield Hero and Arifureta. Both of the MCs are betrayed by their party (the hero party+the kingdom and the class party). A big chunk of the stories doesn't even bother with the supposed betrayers, and it's a good execution in my eyes.

But I dropped Shield Hero after he had a revenge to his betrayers and Arifureta after he finally met his classmates. The resolutions for these two conflicts that stemmed since the prologue were cool, or whatever, and the readers get to finally feel vindicated, or whatever. Unfortunately, the authors seemed to forget to make a new emotion as the focus in the following chapters.

There's no reason to continue reading them (for me). No compelling narrative push, the new conflicts feel empty because they change from the 'i do it cause fuck everyone' to 'i do it just because', and the two seem to just become another slice of life isekai stories.

 

[expentio]

My stories are basically pure chaos. The main theme is that the MCs get turned into creatures and need to deal with it. The plot follows. While situations naturally revolve around this most pressing point, I wouldn't exactly call it the focus of the happenings. They are the main influence, but not the reason why things happen as they do. The strive for acceptance, and the situaional repercussions are very defining, but I don't think of this as a conflict. It is a goal, a feature, a point of the story I want to elaborate on.
I'm pretty sure the way I wrote my stories without any concept in mind would make it seem like a mess. But it's a noce mess. My mess.
I truly believe that harshly binding your ideas and fantasies to strict concepts isn't doing a favor to a creative work. It does seem counterintuitive.

 

[FRWriter]

Sorry for the intervention. Are you trying to create zachycards fanfiction? Because that seems like it.

Who is zachycards?! I am creating my own fanfiction, I just disagree with the video, at least speaking as someone who loves to read webnovels/fanfics.

 

[beast_regards]

Most anime ever created doesn't agree with you.

Most of them not only don't have central antagonist, they lack the central conflict as well. This is "miracle" of eastern styled storytelling.

They show you what happens, but not necessarily involve "conflict" or "overcoming challenges" and "defeating main antagonist".

Introduction>Development>Twist>Resolution doesn't follow this logic.

In My Hero Academia, it is...

In the world of superpowers (Introduction) there is a boy without superpowers(Development) who receives the superpower despite he shouldn't have (twist) and becomes a great hero anyway (Resolution) ...

It not only doesn't require conflict, despite ironically t is a shounen anime and has plenty of conflict, and it doesn't require a central antagonist. Not only there isn't one, the antagonists for the individual arcs aren't important to the plot. The first arc seems to be about the meaning of heroism, and defeating the vigilante (Stain) should be the logical end of the story, but neither is actually important (even if the Stain is defeated)

 

[FRWriter]

Most anime ever created doesn't agree with you.

Most of them not only don't have central antagonist, they lack the central conflict as well. This is "miracle" of eastern styled storytelling.

They show you what happens, but not necessarily involve "conflict" or "overcoming challenges" and "defeating main antagonist".

Introduction>Development>Twist>Resolution doesn't follow this logic.

In My Hero Academia, it is...

In the world of superpowers (Introduction) there is a boy without superpowers(Development) who receives the superpower despite he shouldn't have (twist) and becomes a great hero anyway (Resolution) ...

It not only doesn't require conflict, despite ironically t is a shounen anime and has plenty of conflict, and it doesn't require a central antagonist. Not only there isn't one, the antagonists for the individual arcs aren't important to the plot. The first arc seems to be about the meaning of heroism, and defeating the vigilante (Stain) should be the logical end of the story, but neither is actually important (even if the Stain is defeated)

Fully agree. Also you are talking about anime. I'd say your argument for novels would be even stronger.

 

[beast_regards]

Fully agree. Also you are talking about anime. I'd say your argument for novels would be even stronger.

The vast majority of manga and light novels are similar in that regard...

I wouldn't make an argument about the web novels here on site, they work the same, but then OP would argue that they are all wrong because they are written by amateurs...

But the vast majority of manga and light novels actually went through the official publishing process, i.e. they were been reviewed by professionals and brought by the large company, and argument about amateurism wouldn't work. Anime is the perfect example, as there is no self-published anime, they all require a team to make and the studio to finance (even if they outsource a lot to freelancers)