Now I suspect this is quite the controversial topic, but I also suspect I'm not the first to have thought about it. Simply put it's the idea of having two Game Masters running the same game, using clearly defined roles such as "handling the main story-line" and "NPC's and improvised events". Basicly one is GMing on a macro level, and the other at micro scale.
We're completely new to the thought and haven't even written a campaign yet. This would also improve our ability to split the group with a satisfying result, as well as keep-the-players-busy-while-researching-rules etc. Has anyone tried this before? Do you got tips or experiences? What works best/worst? What do you think?
We did this back in the day. Using 1st edition rules just before 2nd ed came out. We had a group large enough that we had 4-5 GMs running different groups in a shared world set up. The problems I saw was that really only 2 of the GMs were seen as the "true" GMs of the shared world and would often undo what the other GMs did. Clear guidelines on the authority of one GM over another would have helped.
Example: one PC did something dumb and got some of their magic items destroyed by a rust monster. Next thing I know the next week rolls around and another GM hand waived all the destroyed items back into existence.
Its scenarios like that that you would need to watch for. Again having clear guidelines from the beginning may have helped.
We have a GM that forgets....a LOT. We put up with this for a year before we started Pathfinder. When we had enough it was decided that in the AP there would be 2 GMs. One was the efficient GM who would run one module and the other would run the next module. So we had two GMs on and off. We are nearing the end of Second Darkness and each GM is running one of the Glyphs.
Since it is one module each instead of 2 GMs at the same time, there hasn't been the problems you guys have run into.
I really prefer to use a co-GM in situations where I need the help. A co-GM is a player in the game that can do things like track initiative, help look up rules, possibly run a long term NPC, keep track of party loot and important NPC's or places, and keep some notes on the story and happenings to help keep the other players up to speed.
I really don't like having to do that though, except for someone else to track initiative. I hate doing that so I pawn it off on a player almost all the time :D
|
I've played two games with co-GMs.
In one we had a GM who liked encounter design, building enemies, and drawing combat maps, but who didn't fancy himself a great RP-er or world builder. The second GM took care of the whole setting and most of the plot. First GM ran encounters, while second GM would introduce the weekly scenario, clarify setting lore, and run most of the more RP intensive encounters. Our opinion, as players, was that they were both pretty much good at all aspects of the game, but the dual GM system floated their boats so it worked really well for everyone.
In the second game, we started playing RotRL but knew that the GM would be leaving for basic training and then AIT, so he wasn't going to around for big chunks of the game. He and I decided to co-GM, so we both made a character together and he ran the first book. Book one ended just before he had to leave, so I picked up for books 2 and 3 and DMPC'd our character. While he was in town he picked up the character while I kept GMing, and once he's back for good he'll either finish off the last three books or we'll trade off from book to book. We still collaborate while he's out of town too. It's been a good system to avoid having to put the game on hiatus for six months while the GM's gone.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Concur.
Back in the 1st-Edition days, my gaming circle at college and at home both considered this to be a standard style of play. It employs two perspectives to look at things before the encounters hit the table, and allows one GM to play "the opposition" with full-throated effectiveness (as appropriate for the level of sophistication and knowledge of the opponent), while another GM handles all the fairness issues.
|
I really prefer to use a co-GM in situations where I need the help. A co-GM is a player in the game that can do things like track initiative, help look up rules, possibly run a long term NPC, keep track of party loot and important NPC's or places, and keep some notes on the story and happenings to help keep the other players up to speed.
I really don't like having to do that though, except for someone else to track initiative. I hate doing that so I pawn it off on a player almost all the time :D
I am like this too. Though I had to take back combat initiative tracking because I as the GM am the only one who keeps up the pace so combat doesn’t drag. It is really helpful for rule look up and assistance though with a group that rotates GM responsibility.
Peculiar, this thread seems to have been moved from the Campaign category to Gamer Talk.
We did this back in the day. Using 1st edition rules just before 2nd ed came out. We had a group large enough that we had 4-5 GMs running different groups in a shared world set up. The problems I saw was that really only 2 of the GMs were seen as the "true" GMs of the shared world and would often undo what the other GMs did. Clear guidelines on the authority of one GM over another would have helped.
Example: one PC did something dumb and got some of their magic items destroyed by a rust monster. Next thing I know the next week rolls around and another GM hand waived all the destroyed items back into existence.
Its scenarios like that that you would need to watch for. Again having clear guidelines from the beginning may have helped.
Luckily my group really isn't that large, we average around six people including GM every session. However, we could probably both be interpreted as true GMs successfully. Keep notes, inform each other and prepare online - maybe on Google Drive - ought to work.
In the second game, we started playing RotRL but knew that the GM would be leaving for basic training and then AIT, so he wasn't going to around for big chunks of the game. He and I decided to co-GM, so we both made a character together and he ran the first book. Book one ended just before he had to leave, so I picked up for books 2 and 3 and DMPC'd our character. While he was in town he picked up the character while I kept GMing, and once he's back for good he'll either finish off the last three books or we'll trade off from book to book. We still collaborate while he's out of town too. It's been a good system to avoid having to put the game on hiatus for six months while the GM's gone.
I enjoy this idea, of GMPC-ing together. I'll do my best to try to avoid a Lawful Stupid Paladin a la "The Gamers: Dorkness Rising", and instead focus on supplementing our generally inefficient party. Since they are mostly individuals who struggle to co-operate, maybe a supporting class like a Bard would do the trick.
Thanks a lot guys, for your valuable advices. I'll put it to good use ^^