|
Hello all,
I built the BOAT. I created the DUNGEON SCENERY. I printed out the Player's Guide. I have studied up on Craft Points and Defense Bonuses. I am ready to run and my group is anxious to start.
My question starts with this statement.
Myself and my DM who ran Shackled City have decided to DM alternating between every other adventure. I believe we both can remove player/dm knowledge from the equation.
Does anyone have any experience with sharing DM duties for a campaign?
Are there any problems I should prepare myself for that may arise from the shared duties?
Any insight would be most helpful and appreciated.
We're getting prepared to sail into the Savage Tide!
FH
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I've never tried that Fakey. It seems like it would be hard not to let player knowledge creep in though. But, I don't necessarily think that is bad. You could really help facilitate the play because you would be keyed in to the important names. So, when everyone is saying stuff like "wait, why are we going here for whats-her-face again?" you can keep things rolling by saying "we're going to the Isle of Dread for Livinia to do spoilerish things." It's always nice to have that kind of player on board, who keeps the game going and on plot.
You should probably consider mixing up things like trasure and maybe even bad guys. One risk is that even if you don't intend to use player knowledge, it might lessen your fun by removing surprises.
You could have your character be a prophet, which would also aid in communicating important information to the other characters and thus being a conduit from DM to the characters. You could even make your predictions creepy. It could add an interesting dimension to the game.
Alternately, you could play the 3 Int barbarian and just not acknowledge the plot.
Anyway, those are some random suggestions/ideas.
|
|
I’m not sure how much you and your friend have read, but I’d suggest that you both stop reading the other adventures until you’ve decided exactly how you’re both going to split the adventures between you. And you might want to wait reading your adventures until your friend has finished DMing it. As you’ve both read a certain number of the adventures so far, I’d suggest that you each run the ones that appeal more to you and/or have the person run it that plays best to their strengths.[/qoute]
Too late, I read them all so far. He hasn't read any yet. But I really don't think the player/dm knowledge will be an issueAnother thing is character consistency. Ie. if on of you is DMing alternate adventures, what’s their PC doing while the other is adventuring? Ie. does he just “disappear” until it’s the other PC’s turn (and vice versa)?We were planning on just DMPCing them and this would be where the DM knowledge not being PC knowledge would come into effect. I did like Sebastian's idea of using our PC's to give good accounts of what HAS happened though.As for player knowledge, while playing TINH I just took a back seat to making decisions about where to go etc, getting more involved in tactical decisions. Unfortunately in this case, I have a pretty good memory, so it was hard at times to not let something slip that would make something easier for the group. On the other hand, I know where to “nudge” the main players if something really important needs to happen, such as ensuring the group keeps the statue found in part 3. As I’m not gong to look at...Exactly what I was planning on also.
Cool, keep it coming guys. Good stuff ('cept Heathy, but I still gotz luv fo da wolf-boy).FH
I have never done this on an adventure path, but I have switched off DMs before and I am currently a player in the Castle Ravenloft adventure that I ran back in 2nd edition.
The problem with the campaign in which we switched is I was running them out of Dungeon and thus required less effort so I ended up doing more of the DMing. This was fine until my Paladin was ripped to ribbons and I decided to play the wizard (bad choice for a DM character[spell lookups kill the sense of urgency]), and near 9th level I was left hanging because the other guys thought it was 'my' campaign now.
I enjoyed it in the beginning because it made the campaign a creatively group effort and each of our styles led to a flavor that I could never have come up with. Also, I enjoy watching my character grow as much as I enjoy running the game, but seperately.
The game with Ravenloft isn't bad at all because Wizards switched it up alot from the old game. A lot of old history is the same and I enjoy viewing it from a different angle. Maybe watching the way the other DM plays a couple NPCs will change your perspective on how you play the same ones...
Have fun with it, I've been thinking about doing the same thing for a while now.
I have done this before, but we did break it up by adventure sequences, so maybe Sasserine, Isle of Dread, Scuttlecove, Maw might make natural breaks. low, mid, high, epic levels might make another natural break. I think it makes a campaign a bit more likely to last all twenty levels also. You must agree to house rules that will be consistent throughout the campaign. One of our DMs killed his own character so he could be resurrected as the creature he wanted it too (instead of random like the rest of us did).
And one player (the same) had maps and would use them when he wasn't DMing and that spoiled a lot of the fun. Having agreed to separate DM/PC knowledge should be enough though.
I too am curious about how you are working the PCs though. Having unique skills (fireball, open locks, profession sailor, sylvan language) may mean some adventures your PC needs/wants to play or could get boring. My monk was the only one who could do certain things and while I was DMing, it came down to me rolling a lot of dice and saying "ok you make it." But I think this would be really cool if you both played the _same_ character. At least almost the same... >:)
A cleric of multiple personalities might worship Olidimmara today and Pelor tomorrow; the 'same' paladin may summon a horse today and a wild boar tomorrow; somedays your PC can wield two weapons and hates undead, sometimes she shoots two arrows and hates aniamals, etc. Go even a step further and play a multi-class character who does not recognize half their class levels mwuhahahahah.
Again I am interested in how the PC part works out.
|
|
I have done this before, but we did break it up by adventure sequences, so maybe Sasserine, Isle of Dread, Scuttlecove, Maw might make natural breaks. low, mid, high, epic levels might make another natural break. I think it makes a campaign a bit more likely to last all twenty levels also. You must agree to house rules that will be consistent throughout the campaign. One of our DMs killed his own character so he could be resurrected as the creature he wanted it too (instead of random like the rest of us did).
And one player (the same) had maps and would use them when he wasn't DMing and that spoiled a lot of the fun. Having agreed to separate DM/PC knowledge should be enough though.
I too am curious about how you are working the PCs though. Having unique skills (fireball, open locks, profession sailor, sylvan language) may mean some adventures your PC needs/wants to play or could get boring. My monk was the only one who could do certain things and while I was DMing, it came down to me rolling a lot of dice and saying "ok you make it." But I think this would be really cool if you both played the _same_ character. At least almost the same... >:)
A cleric of multiple personalities might worship Olidimmara today and Pelor tomorrow; the 'same' paladin may summon a horse today and a wild boar tomorrow; somedays your PC can wield two weapons and hates undead, sometimes she shoots two arrows and hates aniamals, etc. Go even a step further and play a multi-class character who does not recognize half their class levels mwuhahahahah.
Again I am interested in how the PC part works out.
It looks like we will have 7-8 players, including whoever is DMing, so I just plan to beef up an already filled role so as not to be "unique" in the party.
FH
I'm a player in an Age of Worms game, but I was the one who wanted the game to be started, because I had all the Dungeon Issues. And the guy DMing it is kind of my apprentice, so I help him out from time to time. But for the most part it hasn't been too bad; I play a character who has no reason to act on the knowledge I have as a player, so the separation is easy to do. I just add the occasionally concious stupid decision (relative to what I know OOG) to balance any subconcious metagaming.
Now we'll really find out how it goes, because we start Kings of the Rift, and this was the one issue I didn't buy until after we had started, because it was the period between newstand and subscription. I have no clue what happens in this adventure, besides something about fire giants (from the cover). I expect to be surprised.
Back In the day we had 2 Dm's switch on and off for a little. While one DMed the player that would Dm next chapter, would play a mute or had amnesia or was blind. This was our little solution to the problem and It was a blast! This Is If your DM/Player doesn't mind being compromised In such a way, but at the same time He/She knows the storyline so there having there own kinda fun. Hope that helps you out a bit?
DAve
|
|
Hey FH, totally off topic, but how'd you manage to scare up a new group? I thought you had posted about your old group crashing and burning. Or did I make that up along with the whole being-a-lawyer thing I'm always pulling?
I quit the old group due to "play style differences" to be p.c. and joined a new group that plays a homebrew with one dm one week and Shackled City with another dm on the opposite weeks. The SC DM kept having too few people to game and we were missing about 1/2 of his games due to too few bodies. A couple guys from the homebrew group had played Shackled City so didn't want to join in his group. SC DM's campaign, while good, was atrophied due to lack of bodies. Enter Fakey with an offer to run Savage Tide. Bolsters the group to where if 1 or 2 miss we can still game. The Shackled City DM in my group is gonna run with me every other chapter, and DMPC the other times.
I am in a great group.Thanks for the concern, surprising to see that in a blood-sucking lawyer!;P
My old group, I hear is still trying not to implode but seems to game infrequently now. Give players what they want and they want to game, don't and they find excuses not to be there.
Are you really a lawyer? What kind(besides rules)? I got one in my group.
FH
Are you really married to the idea of switching on and off as DMs? Cause your group sounds large F.H. and I thought maybe both DMing at the same time might be a fun exercise for you.
I ask because my current gaming group runs from 8-12. We run with two DMs at the same time. Its a homebrew world of my own making and we switch off duties every game.
One week I run flavor text and single NPC interaction, whilst he runs combat and combat friendly NPCs and we both interact with each other when there is a multiple NPC encounter. The next session we switch. This also allows for the group to split if they feel that hitting a story from different angles is important so that we each take a group and run at different parts of my game room.
We have had some of the very best stories come from this style, as we are able to more freely interact and weave the story as we go since one single DM doesnt have the nightmare of coordinating such a huge group.
To be precise most times the groups ARE split and moving at oppostie ends of a story to work them out. But your group sounds like it will be fine playing as one and working as one group, making the double DM gambit more plausible in my opinion.
Somethin to chew on maybe...or not...your choice.
|
|
Neat idea, Balron, but I expect 1 or 2 people to be missing in any particular session. A few of the players have those types of jobs. I like the idea and will try to implement the multiple npc interaction aspect of it into the game. Combat I usually give jobs out to players (one tracks initiative, one looks up rules question, one tracks spell durations) and I use the Game Mastery Combat Pad which helps to track spell durations and initiative, so I will probably combine the extraneous combat tasks and hand the jobs to the other DM.
Good stuff, guys! I am gaining more confidence and feel like this will work.
FH
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Are you really a lawyer? What kind(besides rules)? I got one in my group.
FH
I'm really a brain in a jar, but I am also really a lawyer. There's a whole lawyer thread floating around here somewhere. I'm a corporate attorney. What type of law does your friend practice?
I don't forsee a problem with this, but make sure you and the other DM have time to sit down (maybe over coffee or beer) and have bull sessions. Plan out who's doing what adventure, discuss individual PC RP opportunities, set up plot threads and the like.
Edit: Before I forget, since you'll be players in each other's games, passing notes with ideas or asking suggestions from the other DM is perfectly acceptable. I do this frequently with my hubby, since he's the GM of the Rifts/Beyond the Supernatural game I play in, and vice-versa.
|
|
I'm really a brain in a jar, but I am also really a lawyer. There's a whole lawyer thread floating around here somewhere. I'm a corporate attorney. What type of law does your friend practice?
Are you really a lawyer? What kind(besides rules)? I got one in my group.
FH
I think he's an ambulance chaser but I will ask next session. Corporate Law, wow! Big $$$! Be sure to donate frequently to the Paizo Support Fund.;p
FH
You'll both want to take good notes. Inevitably questions come up which are not answered in the modules, especially once the PCs get access to Commune and other divinations, and you'll want to make sure the answers one GM comes up with aren't contradicted by the other. It looks pretty bad if Heironeous lies to the PCs....
A good set of shared maps will help. We had trouble getting the locations of cities straight in SCAP and AoW (no overview maps) and with multiple GMs that would be even worse.
Good players can handle the firewalling. I knew way too much about SCAP before starting it, and the campaign mostly still worked. The biggest problem was not inappropriate use of information, for us--it was player morale. (It's not good for the player to realize how completely outclassed the PCs are by the people they're interacting with, early in SCAP.)
If you happen to have both GMs available for one game, having one of them run the NPCs and the other adjucate can be *great* for large fight scenes. I wish we'd had that for the Lucky Monkey in SCAP.
As others have said, if you are planning on running your PC and GMing at the same time, pick a PC type who is easy to run so that you don't get overloaded, and unspectacular so that you don't seem to be hogging too much of the spotlight. Straightforward fighters, healer clerics, or party-buff clerics are good choices. Avoid characters who have any chance of being party spokesman, unless you are very good at talking to yourself and your group tolerates it. Also avoid leadership roles, PCs with cohorts, familiars, animal companions.
Mary
|
You guys could run the same charachter when your not DMing, but make the character have split personalities. I played in a game where two people played the same character, and it was a blast. Most of the time only one player could make it to the game, but the times when both were present were halarious(sp?). The game wasn't very serious, we had an inexperienced DM, and the campain had no story (he just started throwing the highest CRs that he could find at us), so it may just be the lack of anything better going on at the time that made this so funny.
Tried it once in 30 years of playing. Only once. 'Nuff said.
Do it and Let us know how it works for You......
I personally do not see why it can not be done. ..
The problem for me would be that having all the meta knowledge would detract from the fun of playing a PC.
Example: the puzzle in Olangrau's Lair.
If you know the solution, you have to just sit there and wait for the other guys to figure it out, otherwise you are using meta knowledge.
If you can still enjoy sitting through 8+ hours playing a adv. while pretending to not know anything, then you should be fine.
I guess you can always play the 5 int barbarian.........
I like the dual (simultaneous) DM idea. That would rock.
I wouldn't find it enjoyable, personally. What it sounds like you're talking about doing is having a Co-DM arrangement. Having the advance knowledge about stuff just seems like already knowing what the presents are under the Christmas tree and pretending like you're surprised when it's time to open them. Sure, you could separate player knowledge from character knowledge, but it really takes a lot of the fun out of it.
My suggestion would be to either have one guy run the campaign. Period.
OR
Go with an actual Co-DM arrangement. Much like your original idea, you could alternate running the key NPCs while the other focused on the mechanics side of running the adventure (combat, read-aloud text, etc.). But make no mistake, you're on the DM side of the screen. Not a player.
I think if you try what you're proposing, it's going to leave both of you feeling unsatisfied. I know it would definitely not be fun for me.
EDIT: Just wanted to add that there are a ton of good things said about running a game with two DMs. Being able to have NPCs actually talk to each other and not the DM talking to himself is awesome.
I've been trying to arrange for a fellow DM to come Co-DM an occasional session with me for some time now. I haven't been able to match schedules yet, but I'm looking forward to when it actually happens.