So I recently read a discussion between a GM and the players about the speed of the game and how things were moving slower than usual due to life, etc...
I realize that's a common challenge in this pbp community and so I got to thinking about ways to overcome that particular challenge. Specifically, having a game move slowly because the GM is busy. I got a hint of an idea about having a Dual-GM'd game. This format could help or even eliminate some time-related problems some pbp's face.
However I realize this Dual-GM format could create a host of entirely new problems, and I'm interested in your thoughts on the subject. Hundreds if not thousands of GMs and players hit this board regularly, and I'm trying to tap into your vast experience, intelligence and common sense.
- Dual-GM Format Challenges
- Required some moderate/heavy discussion and planning between two people, not just one person managing his/her own schedule.
- Differing ideas and goals for the campaign, either overarching or encounter to encounter
- Two different GM 'voices' as each GM puts his/her own personal touch and flair into every post and every encounter. Possibly creating confusion and/or discordance with the players and flow of the game.
- **Any other challenges you all could see occurring here?**
- Dual-GM Format Positives
- More GM 'availability' throughout the course of the game, daily, weekly, etc...
- Potential for more (double) creativity and quality as each GM has more time (and energy) to put into each post.
- Slower 'wear and tear' on each GM as they can sometimes take a backseat as the other GM handles a particular encounter or life creates some time challenges for a short or long period of time.
- Fewer 'dead' games as if one GM wants to/has to disappear for long enough a regular game would perish, the other GM can step in and carry the torch solo (or find a replacement for the missing GM).
- **Other positives you all can think of with this format?**
I'm eager to hear your thoughts and ideas, either for or against. I could see a game run in this format either going very well or very bad. Also I'm sure much would depend on the the GM's involved, some might thrive in this format while others it would chafe.
Ultimately, if this is viewed in a positive light I'd like to implement this and start a game. So I suppose you should specify, along with any input, whether you'd be interested in participating as one of the two GMs.
Thanks for the read!
(I couldn't figure out a better place to put this post. It's specific to PbP gaming and exposure to the community here of actual GMs and Gamers alike made this the best place in my mind.)
Depending on what it is, I'd be interested in joining as a player, but, I'm too new to the pbp format of dming that I can't join as a DM.
Regardless, I do enjoy the idea of more DM availability.
I know that at Mythweavers there were dual DM games. However those folks knew each other RL and could coordinate stuff better that way.
I'm not familiar with Mythweavers, and RL relationships would certainly help things.
Also, while I appreciate the eagerness Duboris, I'm just going to assume that once a game is started players will be wanting to join. So before anyone states their desire to play, your message has already been received and I thank you. :)
As someone who has been a GM in non-PBP campaigns, I feel that it would often cause issues to have multiple GMs for one campaign particularly if they had no real life connection. Main issue I have found and can see with multiple GMs is creative differances which could be mitigated by using a published campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Differing ideas and goals for the campaign, either overarching or encounter to encounter
This right here is what I think would be the biggest problem. I think it would be generally okay to have two DMs if you were doing an existing campaign. It could cause complications because everyone generally wants to put their own spin on things, not run the same game 15 times. For example, I am getting ready to run a conversion of D&D's "Red Hand of Doom" for my regular players that has a huge amount of changes to it.
With something that's homebrewed, this becomes basically impossible. The amount of information that you'd have to convey to another GM, and trust them to share your vision, is pretty substantial. The only way that I could see it working is if you guys knew each other beforehand and came up with the entire thing together.
|
I've often run dual GM games with my local group, and really the reason we do things is while 1 person is very good at creating a story they suck at rules/paperwork, and the other person may be a dictionary but not super creative. It's kind of like the artist/carpenter combo. One person creates the story, the other brings it to life. Also it helps take care of the differing ideas for the campaign.
Also, if you are interested in running such a campaign, I make an excellent paperwork sub-DM. I'm very good at creatively running encounters on the fly and predicting players (once I ran the same fight twice from two different perspectives, and I knew how my players would react so the first encounter was right :P)
One specific bonus I could see is you could have a certain DM focus primarily on story line, while the other one could focus on attending to players perceptions.
The only downside of this is both of the DM's would need to be well informed.
I've personally been wanting to do a PbP campaign that was well thought out, potentially a mere homebrew with only 4 players. I could just as easily do a fully thematic campaign with rise of the runelords, as I have the whole book.
I would enjoy that...
The problem at hand is that with 2 DM's you need communication, which is easily achieved by a constant link via a steam conversation, or just any old chatroom, really.
(As a side note, how difficult would a completely thematic campaign be?)
I've run games and seen games run as Drivnr suggested with the two GMs dividing the duties between them and most of the time it has worked well (can be a great way of introducing a new GM to GMing). I see no reason that it couldn't work on PBP but I have only experience GMing face to face. However it does undermine a lot of the advantages of duel GMs (more GM availability).
I think for I was going to try a truly joint game on PBP as suggested I would run something published and make sure the other GM was fine running with any crazy ideas I had (the old Improv motto of never say no).
Sharing duties is something I'd definitely be interested in. We could do with a registry somewhere to signify our interest in partnering with one or more GM's to conspire against would-be adventurers.
You all make some excellent points on both sides of the coin. As anticipated the big doozy would be communication between the two GMs. I think it could run well, maybe better than well, until an issue came up that required both GMs to communicate. Then it could add a ton of extra time as that communication waits to take place, where just one GM could make the executive decision. As I write that is seems its an issue would could be dealt with by clearly defining roles.
You be the judgement maker, or we both will or whatever.
I also think it'd probably work best, maybe even have to be handled how you suggested Tim, with just accepting what the other GM decided as running with it. Like in Improv. I can see some GMs really not being ok with relinquishing that much control, and having to adjust their desires every time the other GM changed something. But it has a very creative, flowing vibe which could be really fun.
You've given me much to think about, and I appreciate those of you who've mentioned their interest in participating in some variation of this idea.
Also if there are others out there with more to add, then please feel free to add your input.
Thank you!
I just had an idea and thought I'd kick it out there.
What if we had two GMs doing two sides of the same story. So the same world and setting, but one GM would run things for Group A and the other GM would run Group B.
If they ever ran into each other... and it'd be silly to me if they didn't, things could get difficult with meshing the two GMs, but it could make a world so much more alive and interactive I think.
---------
Maybe Group A are villians, or vigilantes, or something, and the Group B is a bunch of lawmen or helpful heroes trying to catch or destroy them.
Or maybe a war between two cities or rival families.
Or a race to a certain destination or goal.
This would almost have to be a homebrew, but maybe there'd be a way to do an AP, heavily heavily modified. :)
---------
But I digress, and I'll certainly reach out if/when I decided to kick something like this off the ground.
That idea would be particularly interesting to me, GM Mug, both as a GM and as a player. I agree that it'd almost have to be homebrew, which could be rough due to creating a story and making sure both GMs fully understand what's going on, but it could be verrry interesting.
I tried doing something like that a while back with an Assassin's Creed-inspired homebrew set in Golarion. Didn't end up lifting off the ground, but the plan was to have a group for each of two organizations who would work against each other, though not through direct PVP for the most part. I was definitely planning to bring them together occasionally, though. I'd be interested to see how a dual GM situation could work with such an idea.
I tried doing something like that a while back with an Assassin's Creed-inspired homebrew set in Golarion. Didn't end up lifting off the ground, but the plan was to have a group for each of two organizations who would work against each other, though not through direct PVP for the most part. I was definitely planning to bring them together occasionally, though. I'd be interested to see how a dual GM situation could work with such an idea.
Omg make that so I can play it and I'll love you forever.
I will be doing it again at some point, but not for a bit. I'm in a number of PbPs as a player, and currently running a Fallout game here as well. Coupled with senior year, things are a little hectic. Come summer I'd hope to expand, perhaps with that.
I think there are certain APs - Serpent's Skull comes to mind - that could lend itself well to a dual-setup. Managing the NPCs in book one of that AP is a chore, and it could possibly work well to have one GM run the game and one GM function as the NPCs.
|
|
I think a whole setup where party A are vigilanties and party B are lawmen/soldiers would be interesting. They'd normally not like each other, but then a greater evil would arise and they would have to work together. So originally there are missions that are more or less directly or indirectly working against each other, let the characters develope that way, then have them combine forces to stop BBEG
Yeah Arma, I love Assassins Creed, I was just playing Brotherhood for like an hour before hopping back on the forums. (Had to get that darn 100% sync on the tank mission, FINALLY got it!) It's an interesting concept for sure, and two groups/dual GM could make it even more fun and interesting.
Tallgrass, that's a good point. I also thought of Council of Thieves, but in a more general sense. Group A could be the heroes and Group B could be the council itself, or a squad of enforcers or troublemakers for them.
Drivnr I was thinking more PvP... but there's no reason they couldn't be on the same side of the alignment table, albeit with different goals and such until a BBEG threat arrived.
Verrrrry interesting stuff.
I keep wanting to play Way of the Wicked as a "good guy" PvP.
Now you're just talking crazy-talk Andjela! ;)
That's actually a really intriguing idea as well. So many interesting options!
|
I did play a dual GM game before. Ravenloft. I 'refereed' and a co-gm ran strahd and his assets.
actually turned out very well.
Strahd did not know the full capabilities of the party so he had to gradually learn about them :D
I think this is the best way to handle this.
and could be done in any adventure path.
take RotRL
Burnt Offerings-
1 Player runs The Goblins and allies. DM handles all monsters that aren't part of the 'enemy forces'
Biggest thing is as has been said, communication and a clear breakdown on responsibilities has to be formalized and clearly understood
As an alternate idea, a couple years ago, we ran a PnP game with three DMs. The plotline was based around alternate prime material planes, how the barriers between them were weakening, and the players were trying to locate the source of the trouble and eliminate it.
Each DM had their own game world - and we worked out the meta-plot ahead of time. The PCs were created individually - I had 2, the second DM had 2, the 3rd had 1 - rolled separately, with each game world in mind. What started the festivities is that they all found themselves transported to the 3rd world - a world that most of the party was unfamiliar with.
Then, periodically, the party would rotate through the universes, with plot threads in each pertaining to the meta-plot. The kicker was - and this is where it might help with the DM communication issues that you worry about - after our original agreements on the meta-plot, we didn't coordinate further. Each DM could build on the former events or not, as they chose, and could take the game in whatever direction seemed appropriate to them.
As an alternate idea, a couple years ago, we ran a PnP game with three DMs. The plotline was based around alternate prime material planes, how the barriers between them were weakening, and the players were trying to locate the source of the trouble and eliminate it.
Each DM had their own game world - and we worked out the meta-plot ahead of time. The PCs were created individually - I had 2, the second DM had 2, the 3rd had 1 - rolled separately, with each game world in mind. What started the festivities is that they all found themselves transported to the 3rd world - a world that most of the party was unfamiliar with.
Then, periodically, the party would rotate through the universes, with plot threads in each pertaining to the meta-plot. The kicker was - and this is where it might help with the DM communication issues that you worry about - after our original agreements on the meta-plot, we didn't coordinate further. Each DM could build on the former events or not, as they chose, and could take the game in whatever direction seemed appropriate to them.
I'm not usually into the whole different planes thing, but that sounds pretty awesome, and like a good way to keep the DM's from getting burned out with constantly DMing.
But, but, but... The original idea was to limit down time. Redundancy is required, even if duties are split.
Sorry, should have specified - we were players when others were DMing. We had a vested interest in not divulging any meta-plot details. So there wasn't any real downtime.