Quote from: Fiasco;454549I have to seriously question your premise that wanting to be DM is about control.

Me too. That premise is bullshit.

Quote from: The Butcher;454552In my own experience, control freaks make very poor GMs.

Indeed.

I would have to wonder, then, to continue the metaphor others created of co-gming being similar to how a TV series has a head writer and several other writers, about whether that would mean that a multiple-GM scenario would work best when there is a single guy in charge of the GMing overall.  

For example, in Doctor Who, its true that you have several guys doing the writing.  Davies, in his time, was the head honcho.  He had Moffat (among others) writing for him, but they were bound by where he wanted to go with the storyline. Most of them couldn't just jump in and resolve things he didn't want resolved, and they had to include things in the episodes they wrote that suited what he wanted in his view of whatever his "story-arc" was for that season.  Later, when Moffat was in charge, he got to move Doctor Who into the direction and vision that he wanted, rather than Davies; and in turn gets to control what his subordinate writers are allowed or not allowed to do in their episodes.

Now, I've said many times that RPGs are not for making stories, nor are GMs meant to be like novel writers; but basically the premise would translate over to suggesting that what you'd have would be one GM who basically oversaw the general plotline of the campaign as a whole, and others who would have to follow his certain guidelines (which might be more or less strict, depending on how tightly he wanted to regulate where the campaign was going).  

The whole comparison thus raises the question of whether the effectiveness claimed by the whole "multiple writers of a tv series" premise doesn't hinge on there being one guy who is "head GM" like there's one guy who's the "Head writer" or Producer?

RPGPundit

RPGs aren't TV series. They're role-playing games.

QuoteNow, I've said many times that RPGs are not for making stories, nor are GMs meant to be like novel writers; but basically the premise would translate over

No, the premise does not translate over. RPGs are not TV series.

"One Game, Multiple (rotating) GMs"

Why do I think of whirling dervishes?

-clash

Rpg games don't seem to be a very good medium for a control freak type personality.  Other people are generally not easy to control, especially in a situation where everybody shows up voluntarily.

I suspect writing novels or short stories would probably be a better outlet for a hardcore control freak.

Quote from: Benoist;454594RPGs aren't TV series. They're role-playing games.


No, the premise does not translate over. RPGs are not TV series.

Agree.  No overall GM model would work very well, IMO.  Would the master GM be stepping in a any time and waying "no, you can't do that in this adventure"? I think not.

What you need is for the GMS to agree on the basic premise, and what they should and shouldn't do in the game world. Its really not that hard.  The quality of the GMs is the deciding factor, not whether you have a single GM or multiple GMs.

Quote from: Benoist;454594RPGs aren't TV series. They're role-playing games.


No, the premise does not translate over. RPGs are not TV series.

I didn't see you jump on JHKim with this point back when he made it in support of the whole "Multiple GM" argument.

Ok, so fine, in that case everything Kim said which was, thus far, your best line of argument, is rendered invalid.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Fiasco;454605Agree.  No overall GM model would work very well, IMO.  Would the master GM be stepping in a any time and waying "no, you can't do that in this adventure"? I think not.

What you need is for the GMS to agree on the basic premise, and what they should and shouldn't do in the game world. Its really not that hard.  The quality of the GMs is the deciding factor, not whether you have a single GM or multiple GMs.

It would be very hard for me. I can't imagine myself being able to correctly express the psychological makeup of hundreds of NPCs, or the details about secret plot developments I have going on in my mind, to a "Co-GM".   What's more, I would be humble enough to doubt that I could do justice to his vision either.  

It just seems that in each case, unless you're doing one of those "you write a sentence then I write a sentence" type of exercises in making up a nonsense world as you go along, the end product is going to be nothing but the ruining of potential brilliance.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;454707I didn't see you jump on JHKim with this point back when he made it in support of the whole "Multiple GM" argument.

Ok, so fine, in that case everything Kim said which was, thus far, your best line of argument, is rendered invalid.

RPGPundit

I don't care whose argument is "invalidated" in your eyes, because this completely made-up "debate" does not make any sense in the first place.

The real bottom-line is this: some people here have run games with multiple GMs in a variety of circumstances and tell you it works fine, whereas you object it doesn't, while having no experience running these kinds of games whatsoever. You're just unwilling to admit that you're just making up completely theoretical issues and basically don't know what you're talking about.

*shrug* I have better things to do.

@ Pundit: Here's the sad thing about this whole "debate" here. I think you are having a knee-jerk reaction on purely ideological grounds, because you think somehow the 'multiple GMs' paradigm undermines the 'GM as ultimate authority' you think is a pillar of traditional gaming, and thus plays in the hands of the 'enemies' of your internet persona, I'm guessing.

The reason it's sad is that this whole point of view does not reflect any reality of the multiple GM paradigm. When Gygax was running his game, he was the ultimate authority at the game table. When Kuntz was running the game, he was the ultimate authority at the game table. Gygax wasn't quitting on his character Mordenkainen to stand up and tell Rob "No you can't run the game like that because that would conflict with some aspect of Castle Greyhawk." Both abided with the basic premise of role playing: don't be a dick.

The 'multiple GMs' set-up is not the opposite, and is not in conflict with, the "GM as ultimate authority at the game table" paradigm. This is a completely made up notion. So you need to get off your high horse, quit on your made up issues with these techniques, and just accept the feedback of people who are answering your questions on the basis of experience, instead of ideological bullshit: there's nothing stopping any remotely competent GMs, including newbies trying to GM for the first time as was my experience with my wife, to make this work in practice. All they need is to have moderate, normal communication skills and a willingness to collaborate with each other off screen. That's all.

Quote from: Benoist;454563Me too. That premise is bullshit.


Indeed.

Agreed. I enjoy my players getting the bit in their teeth. GMing isn't about control, other than self-control. In my opinion, it's about inspiration, imagination, and connections.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;454742Agreed. I enjoy my players getting the bit in their teeth. GMing isn't about control, other than self-control. In my opinion, it's about inspiration, imagination, and connections.

-clash

Well put. Free association and improvising with what the PCs have given you is already important to GMing; I don't think it's a great leap of logic to apply the same principles to the circumstances your fellow GM has left you with. The campaign will not likely end up being the as much of same special snowflake you had planned as a single-GM campaign, but that's not the only measure of what makes a campaign good.

Obviously there are drawbacks to rotating GMs, but there are advantages as well.

Quote from: Benoist;454726Both abided with the basic premise of role playing: don't be a dick.

Never having been at Pundy's table, I cannot say for certain, but I suspect this is the point he's having a hard time grasping.

Quote from: RPGPundit;454709It would be very hard for me. I can't imagine myself being able to correctly express the psychological makeup of hundreds of NPCs, or the details about secret plot developments I have going on in my mind, to a "Co-GM".   What's more, I would be humble enough to doubt that I could do justice to his vision either.  

It just seems that in each case, unless you're doing one of those "you write a sentence then I write a sentence" type of exercises in making up a nonsense world as you go along, the end product is going to be nothing but the ruining of potential brilliance.

RPGPundit

You have limited your argument to a very narrow range of gaming scenarios. Yes, maybe if you are running a high level, high intrigue game in say a metropolis, handing over might be a little more challenging.  But you know, as in my example, there are many types of campaigns that can be tailor made for multiple GMs where this isn't an issue at all.  Like my one, for instance, where every adventure is in a different part of the world.  The only consistent NPC is the evil wizard.  Its not as hard as you would like to make out.

I would imagine chemistry is very important here as well.

While I haven't co-GMd, I have written a module with another writer (as well as done them solo). Certainly it is a different ball of wax than running a campaign, but I suspect some of the benefits and pitfalls are similar. With a co-writer, if the chemistry is there, you can compliment each others strengths and combat each others weaknesses. It is also great for bouncing ideas, and weeding out the weak plot hooks, encounters, etc.

Honestly I think the biggest problem I would encounter if I were to run a 2 GM game, is the sheduling. I don't have as much time as I used to to prepare. Having to coordinate prep sessions with another GM during the week, would probably be a challenge for me. The other issue I can see coming up is not being able to move forward with an idea until the other guy has signed off on it (depending on the arrangement).

That said it is something I would like to try sometime.