Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/48019
License name: CC BY-SA 4.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/48019
License name: CC BY-SA 4.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Adding a couple of points to @Mark Baker's answer (please read that one first).

It is fine if the secondary characters exist solely for the purpose of supporting the main character, but _don't let the readers notice this_. A nice guideline is "every character is the hero of their own story": your choices as you develop them in the story are guided by what the main character needs, but their existence in-universe is about them; if they seem unconvincing to you, you can think what you would change if they _were_ main characters, and then try to reconcile your conclusions with what the _actual_ main character needs of them.

There is no reason to do less when you can do more. There will be opportunities to enrich your secondary characters in ways that are not strictly necessary for them in their role of supporting the main character. As long as it does not detract from your story, why skip such opportunities? The main point is this: if you strictly adhere to some storytelling model where you've decided to limit the role of secondary characters, you might end up taking the idea too far. It's fine as a general idea, but don't impose it as an obligatory limitation on your story (unless you have some very specific reason to do so).

Original score: 2