TheRPGSite

Has anyone ever done that? Run the same campaign but with different GMs taking turns? Has it ever been anything more than sub-par at best?

RPGPundit

I have done multiple GMs for the same campaign and scenario. For instance, by running a single urban game with GMs in charge of different areas of the city, and players basically changing game tables when they go to this or that part of town. Twice. Once with Cyberpunk 2020, and another time with the entire WoD, with the tables/GMs being running different locations and associated groups of supernatural inhabitants (werewolf pack, camarilla, sabbat, mages). The CB 2020 game might have had 20-30 players, and the WoD game probably had around 50 players. Both games worked admirably well.

Another multiple GM thing I've done, and this is in the long run, is basically running the same campaign world with GMs running their own areas in it. We've done this with the World of Darkness, many GMs we knew were basically picking one "by Night" City for themselves and running it for different players, but we would catch up regularly if we weren't playing at this or that other GM's games and basically assumed that all the events of one City carried over in all the cities of the same World of Darkness. So it was really our WoD with its own recent history and who's who and all that. I was running Paris by Night. There was LA by Night, Venice by Night, Cardiff by Night, Amsterdam by Night, Athens, Rome, Marseilles, Florence ... and I'm pretty sure I'm missing a few. It worked very well over ten years of simultaneous gaming.

I've done the rotating GMs too now that I think about it. During my Arcana Evolved campaign, my wife took over GMing duties for a few sessions in the campaign. A new PC was introduced for me and the group basically got trapped in the plane of I'ix for some time. It lasted maybe three or four sessions, and it was pretty cool. When the PCs came back to the material plane, my character basically became a group ally/henchman whom the players were rolling for and so on, and it worked pretty well. It wasn't lame at all.

Yeah.  In college I played in a long-running campaign (it was started the year before I enrolled, and was still going when I graduated and moved away) with two alternating co-GMs.  It worked great: there was no such thing as an "off night," since the GM who wasn't really feeling it could let the other one pick up the slack.

The game was Ars Magica, whose encouragement of large casts (with each player portraying multiple characters) aided by making it easier to have multiple parallel plot lines occurring simultaneously, so the two GMs didn't have to worry as much about stepping on each other's toes.

Haven't done the multiple GM thing; but have two friends who did it and were very satisfied with the experience (I believe they divided responsibilities: one handled NPCs, the other handled encounters and the environment).

Once I did have a friend of mine run the main villain in my campaign from a distance. I assigned him resources and his basic motivation. He let me know his plans for each session and how he intended to achieve it (i.e. I will set up a trap for the PCs in the dwarven mine). That worked nicely, but it was just a one time thing (The PCs were also aware that he was running the bad guy even though he wasn't present at the table).

Our recent Star Wars (d20) campaign had two GMs. It was a fairly normal campaign, possibly because they worked very closely together, prepared extensively, and when in doubt conferred immediately.

But I can see how that could go wrong.

Quote from: Benoist;453324I have done multiple GMs for the same campaign and scenario, however. For instance, by running a single urban game with GMs in charge of different areas of the city, and players basically changing game tables when they go to this or that part of town.

Great idea!  I am fond of Lankhmar-esque urban sword & sorcery so that would be a very cool model to try with my group.  We have a fairly large pool of people who like to GM.  

I would imagine that each part of the city would take on its own flavor without having the issues of people stepping on each others' toes as much.  How did you handle "city-wide" plots and NPCs?  Also, did you ever have cases where the action shifted to another part of the city mid-session?  If so, how was that handled?

I am in your debt, kind sir.


TGA

I've done it in a number of games.  In Ars Magica, I've done the suggested troupe style which worked pretty well.  Since there's also a rotating cast, we could change every session or two and still had good continuity.  

I did a strictly episodic diceless game using Theatrix where we played a set of immortals, and each episode had a different GM and was at a different time and place in history.  It worked well in that different times and places were supposed to have different feels, and we'd each set adventures in times and places we liked.  However, it was hard to sustain long-term.  

For two years, I co-GMed a campaign of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG.  For that, we tried to make sure that the two GMs kept in similar style with each other.  Our device for this was:  (1) We would GM in sets of 3 single-session episodes, then switch.  (2) Before each set, the GM leaving would give a set of 3-5 "elevator pitches" for episodes - like a 1 or 2 sentence idea of what the episode would be about.  (3) The incoming GM would then prep his adventures based on the other GM's pitches, but with plenty of room for surprises and so forth.  The idea was that the style would be more consistent since we were exchanging ideas.  

I've also done switching GMs for a short-term Spirit of the Century campaign.  Each person GMed a long-ish multi-session adventure.  That worked OK, but continuity was limited.  

I do think it works best if (a) you have reasons for there to be different feel for different episodes, and/or (b) you take concrete steps to keep in-sync with other GMs.

Quote from: RPGPundit;453321Has anyone ever done that? Run the same campaign but with different GMs taking turns? Has it ever been anything more than sub-par at best?

RPGPundit

I've done it three times and had a lot of fun. To me it comd des down to the game. It has tone something episodic and there can't be a lot of conventional travel involved. We ran Dreamwalker, Vampire tM, and Vice Squad: Miami Nights. The first worked as a sort of genre hopping Sliders type game while the last two worked because they were centered around cities where the power structure was well defined. I suppose a mrgadungeon would work well for the same reason but id hesitate to try something like Star Wars which is more epic.

Pete

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;453340Great idea!  I am fond of Lankhmar-esque urban sword & sorcery so that would be a very cool model to try with my group.  We have a fairly large pool of people who like to GM.  

I would imagine that each part of the city would take on its own flavor without having the issues of people stepping on each others' toes as much.  How did you handle "city-wide" plots and NPCs?  Also, did you ever have cases where the action shifted to another part of the city mid-session?  If so, how was that handled?

I am in your debt, kind sir.

TGA

I'm glad you like the idea! :)

It worked great in practice, but what you need in fact is a great organization and a willingness to fix as you go. You need: (1) cooperation between GMs, not hesitate to double check stuff and knowing how to do so very fast without needless chatter and (2) at least one GM with no dedicated area whatsoever, who basically passes along notes between GMs, checks on what's going on and gives brief of major events, these types of things. (3) To have a good notion of pacing. Time can become an issue as some groups are acting later in game world terms than others and so on. You can basically handwave in some situations, play differing situations at the same table at different time frames with an eye towards a break to bring back the clocks to zero, so to speak, gain back time on off camera stuff like players moving from one area to the next. Takes some getting used to, but it works in practice.

You can tailor the experience to fine tune it to the way you guys like to play, and you'll find a way to make it work. It's VERY exciting to play, because of the number of players involved and the sensation that everything's going "live" around your character, if you see what I mean.

I'm not sure about the action shifting mid-session. What I remember however is that in both cases, CB2020 and WoD, players started to basically die either at the hands of each other or with fights with NPCs and the like. The most dramatic example of that was at the WoD game where the Werewolves basically went to war at the end of the game on the Vampires, with some players actually dressed in Scottish tartans playing (real-life) pipes and the whole thing, and the thing devolving into a MASSIVE combat where nearly every single PC died. Out of the 50 or so starting players, I think only 2 or 3 characters made it to the end alive!

Quote from: RPGPundit;453321Has anyone ever done that? Run the same campaign but with different GMs taking turns? Has it ever been anything more than sub-par at best?

RPGPundit

I did this with 7th Sea about ten years ago.  There were four of us in the group and after every "episode" (2-4 sessions) we would switch GMing.  I had a blast in that game, since we ran it like a swashbuckling A-Team.

I've never been part of such a game.  Usually GM-swapping in games I participated in or observed was either due to or resulted in conflicts, and so most games had one GM all the way through, or they crashed and burned.

This may say more for my old RP circles than for the efficacy of the style, though.  That is unfortunate.

I did it with a Scion "Scooby Gang" set up. Each of us had a PC and we'd take it in turns to come up with an adventure and run it. Usually we had our own PC take a backseat during this Adventure but I kind of made the mistake of writing an adventure about Vampires in Highgate Cemetry WHEN I WAS THE SON OF A SUN GOD!

Fail!

That particular session was saved though by one of the best comedy NPCs I have ever created.

The Ghost of Karl Marx.

This guy was so fanatical about his theories that he refused to believe he existed. The PCs spent most of the session trying to convince him to accept that yes there is an afterlife, yes there are clearly deities because we are their children and yes Communism won't triumph because it relies to much on humans being good people.

I love this about Pundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;453321Has anyone ever done that? Run the same campaign but with different GMs taking turns? Has it ever been anything more than sub-par at best?

RPGPundit

I love how if he's never done a certain type/style of RPG and asks for information about it and at the same time puts it down... ;)

Yes, I've heard of many people over the years playing a mult-GM game AND I've done it myself.

In fact, right now, every Wed evening I play in a HMb/AHM game that has rotating GMs. It doesn't rotate on a regular schedule, just whomever has a good adventure prepped and ready. Right now we are about to playtest a Tournament Adventure that is going to be played at one of the Major Cons this summer. It helps us that everyone involved right now has GM'ed HackMaster, but I don't think that is a requirement to this concept working.

Pundit, dude, chill out. You're such a pessimist. Just because you haven't tried it, doesn't mean that it is automatically "crap" or "sub-par at best." There are many ways to have fun playing games.

Tried it once for about a year, with most of the players each taking turns GMing, with a 1-2 session limit for each mini-scenario.

Initially it worked very well, but as time progressed and each GM began to diversify away from the core premise (an island of adventure upon which a colony was being founded) - whether from PC levelling or wanting to make their part of the island more unique, and the entire campaign eventually foundered and collapsed.

In hindsight it was fun, but doomed due to stylistic differences between the various GMs.

We are considering using 2 GMs in our groups forthcoming L5R campaign wherein we hope to take advantage of each of our GMs ability in action and combat vs intrigue and politics.

Also having 2 GMs, means you have '2' extra player characters which can be used to further the plot and push the game in surprising directions.

We aim not to turn the game into a series of one-up man ship contests.

The other thing is being able to clearly split the low-fantasy/high-fantasy elements up.

Quote from: greylond;453389I love how if he's never done a certain type/style of RPG and asks for information about it and at the same time puts it down...

He ain't a person. He's a ControversyBot. He exists to generate site traffic and does so by trying to polarize opinions about this topic or that.

Seanchai

I have played in 1 game with rotating gm's.  It was a Con game for Shadowrun. First gm was quiet and meek 2nd gm was awesome 3rd gm was the killer gm I talked about in the con horror thread.

For the 2/3rds it was decent....

Quote from: RPGPundit;453321Has anyone ever done that? Run the same campaign but with different GMs taking turns? Has it ever been anything more than sub-par at best?

RPGPundit

We've been doing it with Shadowrun for almost four years now, and it's been great!  We have four people who take turns (plus a 5th who ran an adventure once).  One guy probably does 50% of the games, myself and another doing about 20% each, and the fourth doing the rest.  We've got a few players who don't GM at all, and sometimes the same person will do a whole arc before turning the reins over to someone else.  

How do we make it work?  Part of it is shared resources - we have a set of Google docs that contain a list of NPCs, contacts, etc. and a sentence or five about what part they've played in the past.  We also keep a log of past adventures that anyone can reference.  

The other part is that the adventures are largely self-contained and any GM can riff off of anything that's happened in the past.  This often means that NPC relationships develop in fascinating yet sometimes unpredictable ways for everyone.  It also means that, when planning an adventure, we're rarely looking at some kind of master plan for what we'd like to see happen.  Instead, it's about reacting to what has gone on before and developing run ideas from that.  Often casual remarks by one GM can become important plot hooks or NPCs once another GM takes the reins.

Our pickup game (for when the main group can't meet) has been running for about 3 years and is great.  We switch after every adventurer and it has lead to an interesting and varied campaign.  Just three olds hands getting together to sling dice whenever an opportunity can be squeezed in between the regular stuff.

Quote from: greylond;453389Pundit, dude, chill out. You're such a pessimist. Just because you haven't tried it, doesn't mean that it is automatically "crap" or "sub-par at best." There are many ways to have fun playing games.

I can just see how this sort of thing could have a whole slew of potential pitfalls; it could work at its best if both (or all) GMs were in good communication with each other as to what they wanted to do with the campaign, but even then I can't imagine that things would necessarily run as smoothly as if its just one GM guiding a campaign with a single even flow.

That said, the purpose of this thread was entirely optimistic, it was to see if there were personal testimonials from people who can say they did this, "it worked, and here's why it managed to work..."

RPGPundit

I've sort of done it.  For Shadowrun, we run small campaigns from the same shared world.  No fancy google docs for us, we've got a folder stuffed with notes & npcs.  

Characters sometimes migrate from one small campaign to the next, and sometimes feature the same event from a different angle.  For example, our long-experienced characters make a difficult run, then we go back, make newbies, and play the team assigned to provide a diversion for our "named" group.

But we generally don't rotate DMs until we get to a good stopping point in the story.

Quote from: RPGPundit;453321Has anyone ever done that? Run the same campaign but with different GMs taking turns? Has it ever been anything more than sub-par at best?

RPGPundit

My only experience with this was a complete and rather epic train wreck.

I haven't tried this again in the twenty plus years since the debacle.

I could see where shadowrun could easily sit well for rotating gm's, each gm take on the persona of a fixer and send the gang out on a mission...

I've almost played in several games that were planned to have multiple GMs... but none of them ever got off the ground.
It always sounded like something with great potential... at least to me.

In the Wayback I did play in a fantasy game that had two simultaneous GMs... dealing with different aspects of the game. Partly because it was a large group. But that doesn't seem to be what's being talked about here.

Quote from: RPGPundit;453664That said, the purpose of this thread was entirely optimistic, it was to see if there were personal testimonials from people who can say they did this, "it worked, and here's why it managed to work..."

RPGPundit

If you meant it to be optimistic, then why did you include "Has it ever been anything more than sub-par at best?" instead of saying something like, "has this ever worked well for anyone?"

Sorry, but not just in this thread but many, many times you come off as very negative about any game or style of play that you haven't tried...

Quote from: greylond;453691If you meant it to be optimistic, then why did you include "Has it ever been anything more than sub-par at best?" instead of saying something like, "has this ever worked well for anyone?"

Sorry, but not just in this thread but many, many times you come off as very negative about any game or style of play that you haven't tried...

Because this style of running a game is not the standard style, and one would logically suppose there are very good reasons why it is not.  It is likely to be a sub-par experience for those reasons, otherwise we'd all be doing it.  

Reasons include:
1. Not having a single GM means you don't have a single vision of the world.  This is very likely to hamper emulation.

2. Unless the GM's are very good at communicating and understanding each other, it could be very easy for there to be misunderstandings between the two, about a character, a place, or some detail of the world.  Suddenly you have "Myron the rogue" brutally stabbing someone in their sleep by GM2, when GM1, who created him, imagined him to be a happy go-lucky fellow with a heart of gold.  It would be very hard to have both GMs having the same mental perception of characters and their personalities.

3.  One possible solution to this would be to create rules of separation, of certain areas that only GM1 can go and others for GM2, or certain characters only one GM can use, and not the other. But this can create artificial limitations that confuse the "sandbox" functionality of the game.  What happens if GM2 is running the game, and the PCs say "You know who we need to help us here? Myron the rogue!" and then GM2 has to make him inaccessible not because it makes sense that he would be, but because that's GM1's character.

4. All of the above is still assuming good faith on the part of the GMs.  What happens if there's not good faith on the part of one or both GMs? If GM1 kills off one of GM2's characters, or does a world-changing event, just because he has some issue with what GM2 has been doing?  This sort of thing could quickly de-evolve into a clusterfuck.

5. I would assume that while a given GM is not the Gm-de-jour, he would be playing, right?  So how is that handled? Is GM1's PC only around when GM2 is GMing? Is he run as an NPC when GM1 is GMing? If so, how do you avoid the "GM's PC" syndrome? It doubles the chances that one or both GMs' characters will be the "star" of the show while the other PCs (those that belong to players who are not GMs) will not get to see the limelight.

6.  Finally, it increases the likely instability of the campaign.  With two GMs you double the chance that one of them will get bored, or leave, or die, or convert to a religion that doesn't let him roleplay, or whatever else that causes him to stop running the game.  Granted, you could theoretically then keep going with just the one GM that's left, but at that point you've defeated the purpose of the campaign, and the "surviving GM" is left with a game he has to salvage that was initially only half-his, possibly with a bunch of characters he never knew before, and plot threads he wasn't privy to that he now has to try to fill in the blanks for, or awkwardly excise from the setting.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;453751Reasons include: *snipped*

RPGPundit

One, two, four, and six were all present in the great Talislanta Trainwreck.

Pundit, I do think most of your points have some degree of validity but in practice none ever ended up being huge problems in my experience - and this was the main way most of my groups ran D&D for the better part of the TSR era and I think it usually worked well. If there is less of a shared vision, there is more variety. If there is less focus there is less GM burnout. If you risk one GM 'messing up' another GM's contribution, you learn to deal with or even take advantage of an "imperfect" situation. And I think that rather than point #6 you have more stability of the campaign overall as it's not dead in the water if the GM has to bow out, GMs get the regular perspective of being a player to keep them out of a rut and help GMs and players both understand the opposite side of the table. And in my opinion it's a big contributor to stability that though the GM may change the players have the benefit of inertia from keeping their familiar veteran PCs, who are also refreshed by playing 'out of the box' with a new GM from time to time.

Pundit: How often do you play? I mean not being the GM but just a regular player. I've got the impression that it's not often and/or not for long periods of time. Is it one reason why rotating GMs isn't your cup of tea? Because it means you'd have to play PCs every now and then?

Quote from: RPGPundit;453751Because this style of running a game is not the standard style, and one would logically suppose there are very good reasons why it is not.  It is likely to be a sub-par experience for those reasons, otherwise we'd all be doing it.

Just because something isn't popular doesn't mean its sub-par.  Diceless gaming (like Amber), for example, is rare but not sub-par.  Science fiction and historical games are much less popular than medieval fantasy.  Heck, D&D is vastly less popular than World of Warcraft and other MMORPGs.  It's an uncommon taste, but it works well for those who are into it.  

Quote from: RPGPundit;453751Reasons include:
1. Not having a single GM means you don't have a single vision of the world.  This is very likely to hamper emulation.

I think that world-building and other prep is actually a strength of multiple GMs.  Collaboration on world-building means that you can get a lot more prep - more than double.  There's a lot of prep work from GMing, and it can help a lot not just to have multiple hands, but to have someone to bounce ideas off of.  

I think there's good reason to think that more input helps.  Gygax was great, but I think that Weseley and Arneson were strong and useful influences on D&D for example.  Fritz Lieber, say, created Lankhmar with the help of his friend Harry Otto Fischer.  Heck, even Gary Gygax wrote about his early Greyhawk campaign in a Q&A (http://www.enworld.org/forum/archive-threads/22566-q-gary-gygax-part-i-10.html), "I enlisted Rob as co-DM for my campaign too, as it took two of us to manage the large player groups, and also to run all the game sessions demanded by smaller parties. Often times there were two long sessions a day in 1974 and 1975. I had to write material, so Rob ran many of them."  

As for instability...  In my experience, the most common cause of campaign death is GM burnout - i.e. not random loss of interest, but being overwhelmed by the work and responsibility, and wanting a break.  I found that having a co-GM helped with that, and we ran fine for two years.

Quote from: RPGPundit;453751It is likely to be a sub-par experience for those reasons, otherwise we'd all be doing it.

So you at once assume it's sub-par and are optimistic about it? Do you understand what those terms mean?

The biggest hole in your logic is that we could say anything that's not popular is automatically bad and it's a demonstrably untrue idea. For example, diceless roleplaying is bad because comparatively, very, very few people play diceless games.

Of course, we know that diceless games can actually be good games and not at all sub-par. Whether a person uses them and considers them to be good or not is a matter of personal taste.

Multiple GMs is the same way. Some people have tried it and like it. Others haven't tried it, but think positively about the idea. Some people have tried it and didn't like it. Some people haven't tried it and don't want to do so.

As with the standard paradigm, it has its benefits and drawbacks.

And it's likely more people haven't tried it or are unsure about it because very few games use that model.

Seanchai

We have done it for a while, in an episodic location-centred campaign. It worked all right since the adventures were not too strongly connected, and there was not much of an incentive to revisit them. After a while, we settled with a permanent GM (me), and it was preferable, although in a club setup with a rotating cast of participants, it could be better than the permanent group model.

Not done it personally, but have been in two such campaigns. One had really bad communication (as in we players didn't even know one GM was a GM until it was his turn and meanwhile he'd been involved in campaign planning and had some to full knowledge of events!) and uber GM PCs and use of multiple NPCs by the same GM to badger pcs. It went well in spite of the multiple GMs and even then had very bad spots. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. I'd not suffer through the shite again even if meant having the amazing moments. Playing a game is just not worth that mess!

The other (a later iteration of the earlier campaign's backdrop) was more episodic and with technically GM PCs but they were more reigned in. Something still seemed off with it and I don't think there was any more fun for the effort and change in play between GM changes really.

I personally prefer a main and sub-GM(s). Good communication (between GMs and between GMs and players) and getting along well are essential in any case. If there are distinct chapters so to speak that'd likely help.

Quote from: boulet;453792Pundit: How often do you play? I mean not being the GM but just a regular player. I've got the impression that it's not often and/or not for long periods of time. Is it one reason why rotating GMs isn't your cup of tea? Because it means you'd have to play PCs every now and then?

Its no secret that I almost exclusively GM; but I don't think that this skepticism is due to any aversion to playing.  I think that as a player I'd feel as dubious of a multiple-GMs scenario (as much one where I was a GM as one where I wasn't GMing at all) as I would as a GM.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Seanchai;453804So you at once assume it's sub-par and are optimistic about it? Do you understand what those terms mean?

The biggest hole in your logic is that we could say anything that's not popular is automatically bad and it's a demonstrably untrue idea. For example, diceless roleplaying is bad because comparatively, very, very few people play diceless games.

Ok, so both you and JHKim have attacked that particular point.  Let's put it aside for the moment; do either you, or him, or anyone else have any particular rebuttal to the rest of my points?

One of the people on here who has admitted to actually playing in a multi-GM campaign seems to have said that my analysis of the potential pitfalls was in fact experientially spot-on.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;453921Its no secret that I almost exclusively GM; but I don't think that this skepticism is due to any aversion to playing.  I think that as a player I'd feel as dubious of a multiple-GMs scenario (as much one where I was a GM as one where I wasn't GMing at all) as I would as a GM.

RPGPundit

I was dubious but i gave it a shot and it was ok....of course i should of stated that it was a con game where the gm's rotated through out the groups and didn't play at all.  The gm's had meetings before and after each game to go over things and if needs be they had conferences during the game.

give it a chance if all else fails make the gm's do a shoeless walk of shame down a hall with the floor covered in D4's

Quote from: RPGPundit;453922Ok, so both you and JHKim have attacked that particular point.  Let's put it aside for the moment; do either you, or him, or anyone else have any particular rebuttal to the rest of my points?

Sure: "As with the standard paradigm, it has its benefits and drawbacks."

Seanchai

1. Not having a single GM means you don't have a single vision of the world.  This is very likely to hamper emulation.

False. It may happen if the GMs are somehow inept, do not discuss about the world or have no idea how to cooperate with each other. If otherwise they have good communication with each other, if they created the world together, or the world has been played with a single DM prior to their collaboration for some time and they both know it well (i.e. Gygax and Kuntz), or they use a published setting as reference, both of them knowing the material well enough (my experience with WoD), then there is already a basis to build upon. Then from there, it's a matter of keeping communications channels open, sharing information, and so on. It's something that normal people (read: people with actual normal social skills, not antisocial, immature, ego-tripping pricks) can do very easily.

2. Unless the GM's are very good at communicating and understanding each other, it could be very easy for there to be misunderstandings between the two, about a character, a place, or some detail of the world.  Suddenly you have "Myron the rogue" brutally stabbing someone in their sleep by GM2, when GM1, who created him, imagined him to be a happy go-lucky fellow with a heart of gold.  It would be very hard to have both GMs having the same mental perception of characters and their personalities.

Wrong. See above. It's not "very hard". It's actually very easy. If your basic assumption is that most GMs are basically antisocial, immature, ego-tripping idiots, that's your problem. That's just not the case IME.

3.  One possible solution to this would be to create rules of separation, of certain areas that only GM1 can go and others for GM2, or certain characters only one GM can use, and not the other. But this can create artificial limitations that confuse the "sandbox" functionality of the game.  What happens if GM2 is running the game, and the PCs say "You know who we need to help us here? Myron the rogue!" and then GM2 has to make him inaccessible not because it makes sense that he would be, but because that's GM1's character.

This is indeed a possibility amongst others (see my own examples in the first few posts of the thread, and the notions I layed out in this one, above). It does not have to lead to the problems you are supposing, however, as examplified with the multiple "by Night" world of darkness I talked about earlier.

4. All of the above is still assuming good faith on the part of the GMs.  What happens if there's not good faith on the part of one or both GMs? If GM1 kills off one of GM2's characters, or does a world-changing event, just because he has some issue with what GM2 has been doing?  This sort of thing could quickly de-evolve into a clusterfuck.

It seems to me you're assuming the GMs are inept, unable to communicate with each other, and basically individuals with very poor social skills from the start. Your WHOLE series of arguments/caveats is predicated on this notion so far. The bottom line if that if the GMs suck, they suck. The game will fail. If they're normal, decent people with moderate planning skills, moderate improvisational skills, share information between themselves as is obvious in this type of situation, and adjust accordingly as they run the game, it's perfectly fine.

5. I would assume that while a given GM is not the Gm-de-jour, he would be playing, right?  So how is that handled? Is GM1's PC only around when GM2 is GMing? Is he run as an NPC when GM1 is GMing? If so, how do you avoid the "GM's PC" syndrome? It doubles the chances that one or both GMs' characters will be the "star" of the show while the other PCs (those that belong to players who are not GMs) will not get to see the limelight.

The way we did it with my wife was that her character was off screen while she was running the game, and I was playing a new PC with the group (a devil that had been summoned to wipe out the party and turned out to end up partially mind-wiped and free to break his bounds from the Nine Hells. From there he adventured with the party, wanting to discover what freedom of choice was about, leading to all sorts of crazy situations, like the other PCs explaining him it's wrong to decapitate your dead opponents to eat their brains after the fight, not kill envoys sent to the party to negotiate outright, these sorts of things LOL). When I resumed DMing, the devil in question remained as a henchman for the group, with the group basically controlling the character and making rolls for him.

As for one of the GM's character being the "star" or whatnot, that just didn't happen with us. Let's assume that the GMs actually know about the pitfalls of these sorts of things (which are like GMing 101 honestly) instead of assuming they suck yet again, okay?

6.  Finally, it increases the likely instability of the campaign.  With two GMs you double the chance that one of them will get bored, or leave, or die, or convert to a religion that doesn't let him roleplay, or whatever else that causes him to stop running the game.  Granted, you could theoretically then keep going with just the one GM that's left, but at that point you've defeated the purpose of the campaign, and the "surviving GM" is left with a game he has to salvage that was initially only half-his, possibly with a bunch of characters he never knew before, and plot threads he wasn't privy to that he now has to try to fill in the blanks for, or awkwardly excise from the setting.

Likewise, it may actually revitalize the campaign periodically by keeping things fresh, shuffling things around every once in a while, allows everyone to play the game from a different perspective, insures that there's not "one GM uber alles", which is a good thing because if you respect the role of the GM as a referee and final authority at the game table as I do, then it emphasizes the fact this is the role the person assumes at the game table that should be respected for the game to run properly, and not an person-specific thing.

So, to me, all your "arguments" are really not arguments in the first place. They are suppositions based on one thing, and one thing only: that the GMs suck, that they don't know what they're doing, that they don't know about the pitfalls of things like players hugging the spotlight, don't communicate with each other, plan nothing together, can't adapt to an evolving campaign milieu once the rubber hits the road, and so on, so forth.

ALL your stuff boils down to the question: "What if the GMs suck?"
Well, if they suck, they suck. The game will suck.
Solution? Don't suck.

One thing I must point out Benoist. It only takes one of the two GMs to start acting like a dick in order for the game to fail. One GM can be perfectly open to mutual input, collaboration, and negotiation. But if the other one starts being a dick.... then Pundit's theoretical points are pretty well stated. That's been my experience.

I can see it being great when both GMs are on the same page, willing to work out differences, and have give and take. But it will be epic fail when one half of the effort turns it into a trainwreck.

And that's the biggest problem I have with doing shared GM's duties. I can always count on myself when I GM. I can't always count on the other guy to do his part.

Quote from: PaladinCA;453993One thing I must point out Benoist. It only takes one of the two GMs to start acting like a dick in order for the game to fail.

It is true, but in all the multiple DMs experiences I've had, this has not happened.

I'm kind of tired personally to have the basic assumption of every single discussion of GMing techniques be that the person in question is a selfish immature idiot who doesn't know the first things about GMing or is somehow unable to learn like every single individual does. These people do exist, and they will keep on existing no matter what we're talking about here.

These games will fail because these people are assholes. Nothing's going to change that.

That will not stop me, however, from enjoying role playing games with people I actually do like, can collaborate with, people who happen to be my friends, with decent social skills and intelligence. I hope you have people like this in your gaming circles. If you don't, then there is your problem. No amount of advice or techniques is going to solve your problem from there, and that certainly doesn't make these techniques and play styles "wrong" for people who actually happen to be socially competent.

Quote from: PaladinCA;453993And that's the biggest problem I have with doing shared GM's duties. I can always count on myself when I GM. I can't always count on the other guy to do his part.

If you don't count on the other guy to do his part then don't run games that way. Period. Problem solved.

These types of games should be predicated on the notion that both GMs trust each other and are able to collaborate with each other as decent human beings who want to have fun with each other with a game can. If any of the two or more individuals can't do that, whether they are GMs OR NOT, for that matter, then your game is going to suck. That's it. The end.

That's RPGs 101 to me.

Quote from: Benoist;453995That will not stop me, however, from enjoying role playing games with people I actually do like, can collaborate with, people who happen to be my friends, with decent social skills and intelligence. I hope you have people like this in your gaming circles. If you don't, then there is your problem. No amount of advice or techniques is going to solve your problem from there, and that certainly doesn't make these techniques and play styles "wrong" for people who actually happen to be socially competent.

No one is trying to stop you here.

I never said a dual GM game was "wrong." I said in my experience it failed miserably. It failed miserably in large part due to the issues that Pundit feels would be potential pitfalls in such a setup.

Does that mean these potential pitfalls happen for everyone or in every situation? Of course not.

I'm glad it works for you. You must run co-GM games with people that do hold up their end of the bargain. How fortunate.

Quote from: Benoist;453999If you don't count on the other guy to do his part then don't run games that way. Period. Problem solved.

It was an experience of not being able to count on the other guy. I didn't choose to not count on him. I did count on him and he failed to follow through on his end.

The experience was bad enough that I don't run games that way any more.

You're right. Not doing this has solved my problems with multiple GMs running the same game. The letdown or failure of the other GM ruining the campaign isn't possible when there is only one guy running it. Better safe than sorry in my book.

It is nice to see that it worked out for someone somewhere though.

Quote from: PaladinCA;454020I never said a dual GM game was "wrong." I said in my experience it failed miserably. It failed miserably in large part due to the issues that Pundit feels would be potential pitfalls in such a setup.

Does that mean these potential pitfalls happen for everyone or in every situation? Of course not.

No setup is flawless and I think overall you guys have looked at some of the things players should me looking out for and keeping in mind to keep a team of GMs working out. Meanwhile, from my experience there are advantages to a group with several GMs working on the same campaign and it's possible to make it work, and not just ameliorate the hazards but also benefit the game overall. It requires a certain level of adult behavior, yes, but if we could make it work in high school - well, I don't think we were really that wise beyond out years.

Quote from: PaladinCA;454020No one is trying to stop you here.

I never said a dual GM game was "wrong." I said in my experience it failed miserably. It failed miserably in large part due to the issues that Pundit feels would be potential pitfalls in such a setup.

Does that mean these potential pitfalls happen for everyone or in every situation? Of course not.

I'm glad it works for you. You must run co-GM games with people that do hold up their end of the bargain. How fortunate.

I suspect there is just more risk with two people, just as there is more risk when you partner with another person on a project. Most of the risks have been laid out it seems. I can certainly see how things like personality conflict could become an issue.

What I've seen is when this does work, it works very well and can be highly rewarding. IMO worth a shot.

As I said the closest I came was having another person run one of my villains. But would love to try partnering up with another GM sometime just to see how it goes.

Quote from: PaladinCA;454020I'm glad it works for you. You must run co-GM games with people that do hold up their end of the bargain. How fortunate.

To me is just a question of being a responsible, sociable individual, and if I'm fortunate to actually socialize mostly with people who are themselves responsible, sociable human beings, so be it.

Let me put it another way:

Co-GMing is an advanced GMing technique. It shouldn't be done "cold turkey" with people you don't know, and ideally is attempted once you feel comfortable with GMing 101.

GMing 101 includes the ability of the group to create a constructive game dynamic, which includes trust between each participant, where people collaborate with each other and are here to have fun together, rather than being a selfish social retard.

If someone at your game table is a selfish social retard, there are two options: don't play with that person, or make that person aware of the situation so he or she can correct the behavior. If the latter is not possible because of a poor personality, poor parental education or God knows what else, there is the problem. It's not related to gaming. It's related to that particular individual being a prick.

Quote from: Benoist;454024Co-GMing is an advanced GMing technique. It shouldn't be done "cold turkey" with people you don't know, and ideally is attempted once you feel comfortable with GMing 101.

Sensible. Usually someone had to have run some one-shot adventures or otherwise be vetted before getting to GM regularly.

My 4e D&D group currently runs our games with rotating GMs in the same game world.  It works well and we haven't had any issues.  As a GM, you can stake out your own area of the world to focus on, but you can also play in another GM's backyard if you like.  We have a private forum and any possible clash between GMs active in the same location communicate about possible clashes of plot lines and story arcs.

We used to do this all the time.

So I have played Amber games with 2 GMS each GM with a PC in the 'other side' of the game. Would rate it as excellent but the other GM and me had GMd together a lot and played together sionce we were 10 so ...
We played an extended Military campaign where 4 races were at war and before each batlte (using 2e battlesystem rules with some mods) we would run a game where one of the armies tried to get an advantage, so 3 goblin scouts had to assasinate the Elvish general. Woudl rate the concept as excellent and the overall effect, which was to create something as complex as Magician, as excellent, the individual adventures were varied.
We played a Vampire game where each GM ran a time period starting with a game in The Dark Ages, then the Rennaissance, then Victorian London, then Modern New York. This was really good but petered out towards the end because of real life.
Then we played the multiverse games. These were a unique thing we did each year on the aniversary of my uncle's death (he used to game with us). In these games we would resurect old heroes and have them summoned to a location and then put through an adventure with a hook at the end to bounce them to the next session. Each game the DM and the system changed and we adapted the characters. We would play 24 hours straight doing 3 adventures of 8 hours each time. We ran it for 3 years then people moved away and RL got in the way again but basically fantastic .

So I reckon it works pretty well....

Quote from: PaladinCA;454020I never said a dual GM game was "wrong." I said in my experience it failed miserably. It failed miserably in large part due to the issues that Pundit feels would be potential pitfalls in such a setup.

Does that mean these potential pitfalls happen for everyone or in every situation? Of course not.

I'm glad it works for you. You must run co-GM games with people that do hold up their end of the bargain. How fortunate.

You haven't said a lot about your experience, but from your earlier posts, I gather you made one attempt at this over 20 years ago.  It sounds like it went very badly, which you blame on the other GM.  

If we're going to discuss this, it might be useful to have details.  One thing that I'd like to know is this:  Do you think that a campaign with this other person as sole GM would have gone well?  

An inherent problem with collaboration might be if the GMs were fine on their own, but couldn't work together well.  However, GMs just being bad isn't anything new or unique to dual GMing.  I've played in plenty of traditional campaigns that crashed and burned with a lousy GM - but I don't blame those failures on having a single GM.  

Quote from: Benoist;454024To me is just a question of being a responsible, sociable individual, and if I'm fortunate to actually socialize mostly with people who are themselves responsible, sociable human beings, so be it.

Let me put it another way:

Co-GMing is an advanced GMing technique. It shouldn't be done "cold turkey" with people you don't know, and ideally is attempted once you feel comfortable with GMing 101.

I would disagree with this.  Yes, co-GMing will work better if both know the other person and have experience in GMing.  However, *everything* goes better if people know each other and have experience.  

I think that co-GMing can be a great introduction to GMing.  In several cases when I did it, the co-GMing was someone's first foray into GMing.  The co-GMing can be like someone apprenticing in the craft, and then move into solo GMing.  It can be a great way to get to know other people as well.  Yes, it can fail - but doing anything cold turkey with strangers can fail.

Quote from: jhkim;454155I think that co-GMing can be a great introduction to GMing.  In several cases when I did it, the co-GMing was someone's first foray into GMing.  The co-GMing can be like someone apprenticing in the craft, and then move into solo GMing.  It can be a great way to get to know other people as well.  Yes, it can fail - but doing anything cold turkey with strangers can fail.

Point taken. That's actually what I did with my wife when we co-GMed together: she had never run the game before. I just wanted to insist on the principle that if you don't trust the people you play with, then you might just want to avoid this type of technique altogether.

Quote from: Benoist;453991It seems to me you're assuming the GMs are inept, unable to communicate with each other, and basically individuals with very poor social skills from the start.

ALL your stuff boils down to the question: "What if the GMs suck?"
Well, if they suck, they suck. The game will suck.
Solution? Don't suck.

No, I'm just supposing they're not both Excellent.  Just average. Part of the argument, in fact, is that for this kind of thing to work it would require a higher level of capability than if you had only one GM.  An average GM will be able to run an average campaign alone, two average GMs (I think) would probably end up producing a worse-than-average joint-campaign, because they'd end up with all the weaknesses of both GMs and only some of the strengths of either.  

Shit, many of the things I suggested as potential pitfalls are things that professional writers have ended up having to worry about in trying to do shared-world settings like Thieves' World.  No matter how good you are at communicating, it can be very hard to really be able to explain your vision for an entire world, or to really effectively explain your ideas about the inner psychology of one of your NPCs, if that world or those NPCs have any kind of depth to them.  
Some very highly-skilled fantasy authors who certainly didn't suck had to make some strict rules to try to regulate problems while writing Thieves' World, and even then they only managed to put out three or four good books before the whole series turned to crap.

RPGPundit

EDIT: I see that later you essentially admit that co-GMing is an "advanced" technique; that is to say, that it requires that the GMs in question be above-average.  That's the essence of what I'm saying; I'm not suggesting that it can't possibly be a good experience or whatever, but that it requires that BOTH GMs be generally together and be excellent GMs individually.  Only someone who really doesn't give a fuck about emulation could possibly think otherwise; you know, Swine.

EDIT2: I see jhkim has already proven my last sentence there. ;)

As to the experience/skill of the DMs required, just like with regular D&D you would want them to be good to excellent or why play?

What is most important is a spirit of cooperation and maturity.  In our 3 Hander campaign we each have a PC with the GM at the time running the PC like an NPC member of the party (fairly passive but contributes in combats).  Naturally a level of maturity is required to not load up your PC with choice items when you are the DM but that goes without saying.  As for issues with shared visions, a lot of that can be addressed by the overall premise of the game.  For instance, if you are running a planes/dimensional hopping campaign, each DM had pretty much open license to write/create what they want.

Our campaign premise is that the party were summoned by a powerful ghost sorcerer with a high level variant of a monster summoning spell (but instead he got a 1st level adventuring party).  Our characters are good but enslaved to this evil spellcaster and forced to do his bidding or face torture and death.  Each adventure he sends/teleports/gets demons to fly us to a different locale to retrive some item or ancient lore that might have gotten his interest (he would dearly like to return to life).

As we gain in power our natural goal is to overthrow master, while concealing that we have gained considerably in power (lest he kills us because he peceives us becomming a threat).  The premise works well with each mission being run by a different DM and in a different part of the world. Naturally we try and subvert his evil intentions while obeying his instructions to the letter but not the spirit.

Quote from: RPGPundit;4537511. Not having a single GM means you don't have a single vision of the world.

There are certainly drawbacks to having multiple GMs. What your analysis isn't factoring in, however, are the potential benefits.

(1) Shared prep creates more material for players to interact with. For example, I recently keyed 256 hexes for a fantasy campaign. It was a lot of work, but we're reaping the benefits of that prep in actual play. Being able to share that prep load with other GMs would be great.

(2) Shared continuity creates a deeper sense of reality. Benoist mentions the World of Darkness campaign shared between multiple GMs earlier in the thread. Monte Cook managed to achieve a similar effect as a solo GM by running multiple groups in Ptolus simultaneously; but not every GM is going to have the time to prep or run multiple campaigns by themselves.

(3) More opportunities to play. If GM 1 can run on Tuesdays and GM 2 can run on Thursdays and I can play in both sessions -- twice as many opportunities to play Turk the Barbarian!

(4) Communal GMing can result in more stable campaigns. Even if GM 2 quits, GM 1 can continue on. And maybe GM 1 brings GM 3 onboard. And then GM 1 leaves, but GM 3 carries on. Or, to take a less drastic scenario: GM 1 is getting married this summer and won't have as much time for gaming, so GM 2 can pick up his slack and keep the campaign active until GM 1 can come back.

(5) Different areas of expertise. Say I'm really good at designing dungeons and Bob is really good at running urban campaigns. Ta-da! Maybe Steve is really good at making props and I'm really good at painting miniatures. Two heads are better than one.

The question now is whether the potential drawbacks are worth the potential benefits. (Along with how you can organize things to minimize the drawbacks and maximize the benefits.)

Other than doing multiple GMs currently (4), we have done dual-GMs in the past.  Our longest RQ3 game was done by dual-GMs, and I worked another GM on my FR/RQ3 game.  Both instances worked well.  The co-GM was responsible for some of the preparation work like creating game statistics for encounters and NPCs.  We discussed possible plot twists and turns, and how the PCs might act and react to our plans before the game.  

At this time, we had large groups of players (6-12) and managing large groups and combats was challenging, but this is where the co-GM really shinned.  The co-GM would manage some NPCs during combat and encounters, and would organize the book-work end of running the encounters.  Also, at times the co-GM might simultaneously run a smaller group of PCs while the other GM continued with the main group of PCs.

In the end, these experiences worked well because there was a Lead GM in both instances, and the Assistant GM knew their part and role- and was cool with it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;454180EDIT: I see that later you essentially admit that co-GMing is an "advanced" technique; that is to say, that it requires that the GMs in question be above-average.  That's the essence of what I'm saying; I'm not suggesting that it can't possibly be a good experience or whatever, but that it requires that BOTH GMs be generally together and be excellent GMs individually.  Only someone who really doesn't give a fuck about emulation could possibly think otherwise; you know, Swine.

EDIT2: I see jhkim has already proven my last sentence there. ;)

It is typical of swine like you, Pundit, to ignore what gamers actually do in favor of your own preconceptions.  The vast majority of responses on this thread have been that people tried multiple GMs and they enjoyed the results.  That doesn't mean there are never problems, but it also suggests that it isn't especially difficult.  

Sure, inconsistency between GM's is a potential problem, and communication and structure can help with that.  A lot of people have mentioned approaches to handle it.  In my Buffy campaign, we collaborated via a structured process of giving each other "pitches" for upcoming episodes.  

I'm just saying collaboration isn't a more "advanced" technique than solo creation - quite the opposite.  Writing in collaboration is often a beginner's approach, whereas solo writing your own series is advanced.  For example, television shows - even very long-lived ones like Doctor Who - are almost always written by multiple authors.  The same goes for comic series.  In books, big name authors write series solo - but it is fairly standard for second-string authors to write for someone else's series.  Collaboration doesn't take more skill - just slightly different skills and a willingness to work together.

The only time we've done this with my group (and we've done it a lot) is when we do our "Agency" games; kinda like "Mission Impossible" and the like, that we started way back in the 80's with Top Secret and still do from time to time to this day. Whoever comes up with a mission runs it for the rest, and we generally use the same characters and work with the same NPCs (if they survive) etc. Lends a nice continuity. In fact, my first character actually graduated to NPC status as head of one of the Departments a few years back - no more field work for her!

Quote from: RPGPundit;454180No, I'm just supposing they're not both Excellent.  Just average.

Me too, and average in my mind means "average", not "sucks". Co-GMing will work great with average GMs, able of cooperation and constructive socialization in their hobbies and their lives. It's not that rare, you know?

Quote from: Fiasco;454184As to the experience/skill of the DMs required, just like with regular D&D you would want them to be good to excellent or why play?

I would certainly agree in theory.  In practice, some groups may have to settle for "average".

RPGPundit

Quote from: jhkim;454245I'm just saying collaboration isn't a more "advanced" technique than solo creation - quite the opposite.  Writing in collaboration is often a beginner's approach, whereas solo writing your own series is advanced.  For example, television shows - even very long-lived ones like Doctor Who - are almost always written by multiple authors.  The same goes for comic series.  In books, big name authors write series solo - but it is fairly standard for second-string authors to write for someone else's series.  Collaboration doesn't take more skill - just slightly different skills and a willingness to work together.

In TV shows there's a word for what those secondary authors do: Filler.  So what you're saying is that a multi-gm campaign doesn't require both GMs to be excellent, but what it'll produce in that case is a campaign that is great with moments of less-than-greatness? Or of course, if both (or all) the GMs involved are "second-stringers" as you said, you'll end up with games that are less-than-great with moments of fucking-awful?

RPGPundit

Also, some players in a group may consider different GMs to be the best of the group.

Quote from: RPGPundit;454307In TV shows there's a word for what those secondary authors do: Filler.

It's a matter of taste which writers are the best out of a series' writing staff.

Quote from: RPGPundit;454307In TV shows there's a word for what those secondary authors do: Filler.  So what you're saying is that a multi-gm campaign doesn't require both GMs to be excellent, but what it'll produce in that case is a campaign that is great with moments of less-than-greatness? Or of course, if both (or all) the GMs involved are "second-stringers" as you said, you'll end up with games that are less-than-great with moments of fucking-awful?

Perhaps your games are all works of art with never a less-than-great moment, and they shine over anything that lowly television has to offer.  Given this prodigious talent, I would urge you to get rich by publishing, given that you are so much better than television & serial fiction writers.  

However, for the rest of us, we're just playing a game, eating some snacks, and having fun with our friends.  There are ups and downs, and this is regardless of whether there is a single GM or multiple GMs.  Even a great GM will have less-than-great moments in their campaigns, and even a few lousy moments that we try to avoid in the future.

I need break from gming so we are trying this for the first time. I'll tell you how it goes.

Quote from: jhkim;454333Perhaps your games are all works of art with never a less-than-great moment, and they shine over anything that lowly television has to offer.  Given this prodigious talent, I would urge you to get rich by publishing, given that you are so much better than television & serial fiction writers.  

However, for the rest of us, we're just playing a game, eating some snacks, and having fun with our friends.  There are ups and downs, and this is regardless of whether there is a single GM or multiple GMs.  Even a great GM will have less-than-great moments in their campaigns, and even a few lousy moments that we try to avoid in the future.

Ah yes, there's nothing more disingenuous than a Storygame Swine pulling out the "we're just having fun" card when all their usual pseudo-intellectual bullshit has failed.  Pulling it out a bit early this time, aren't you? I guess you've figured out by now how poor some of your other weapons of choice are in this particular arena, huh?

RPGPundit

I'm with pundit on that... If two things are being offered, I'd rather have the better one.

Quote from: RPGPundit;454180EDIT: I see that later you essentially admit that co-GMing is an "advanced" technique; that is to say, that it requires that the GMs in question be above-average.  That's the essence of what I'm saying; I'm not suggesting that it can't possibly be a good experience or whatever, but that it requires that BOTH GMs be generally together and be excellent GMs individually.  Only someone who really doesn't give a fuck about emulation could possibly think otherwise; you know, Swine.

I disagree that co-GMing is, or has to be, an 'advanced' technique, or that it requires both GMs to be 'above-average.'  

It could simply be a matter of two GMs playing off each others' strengths and weakness and collaborating to create something larger than just their own individual visions.  

Some GMs are better at the bookwork end of things or system mastery while another GM might be better at pacing, flow, and speaking.  There is a black hole filled with the GMs that fall between the bookends of GMing abilities, and if two GMs get together to work with each other, it doesn't necessary mean that one is better than the other, or that one GM is imparting GM knowledge from on high to the lesser GM.

Quote from: RPGPundit;454363Ah yes, there's nothing more disingenuous than a Storygame Swine pulling out the "we're just having fun" card when all their usual pseudo-intellectual bullshit has failed.

You're actually calling others disingenuous? After you've spent a thread raising what you know are bullshit objections so that you can maintain the stupid stance you took in your OP? After you said, "Er, guys, let's not talk about Amber anymore 'cause...er...yeah"?

Let's talk about disingenuous. In another thread, you took six to ten people agreeing with you as proof that your point was valid. Now we have about the same number of folks saying you're wrong. That's proof that you're wrong, right?

Seanchai

Quote from: Drohem;454437I disagree that co-GMing is, or has to be, an 'advanced' technique, or that it requires both GMs to be 'above-average.'  

It could simply be a matter of two GMs playing off each others' strengths and weakness and collaborating to create something larger than just their own individual visions.  

Some GMs are better at the bookwork end of things or system mastery while another GM might be better at pacing, flow, and speaking.  There is a black hole filled with the GMs that fall between the bookends of GMing abilities, and if two GMs get together to work with each other, it doesn't necessary mean that one is better than the other, or that one GM is imparting GM knowledge from on high to the lesser GM.

Exactly.  I lapsed into sarcasm earlier, but this matches what I was trying to say.  

With great GMs, then the results are great.  With OK GMs, then the results are less great but generally still fun.

Quote from: RPGPundit;454307In TV shows there's a word for what those secondary authors do: Filler.  So what you're saying is that a multi-gm campaign doesn't require both GMs to be excellent, but what it'll produce in that case is a campaign that is great with moments of less-than-greatness? Or of course, if both (or all) the GMs involved are "second-stringers" as you said, you'll end up with games that are less-than-great with moments of fucking-awful?

RPGPundit

I think Richard Curtis would be a bit offended if you told him his Doctor Who episode was filler.

It really wasn't. It was a critical part of the end of the universe story arch with more of a look into Amy's weird Time change resisting abilities that still are yet to be explained.

Quote from: Ian Warner;454481I think Richard Curtis would be a bit offended if you told him his Doctor Who episode was filler.

It really wasn't. It was a critical part of the end of the universe story arch with more of a look into Amy's weird Time change resisting abilities that still are yet to be explained.

True, but Curtis only wrote one episode.  For co-GMing, I think a better parallel is regular writers who are not the head writer.  For example, from 2005-2009, the head writer was Russell T. Davies.  However, I think that many episodes by other authors, like Steven Moffat, were excellent and should not be considered inferior "filler".

There's a great book called 'On The Psychology of Military Incompetence' by Norman Dixon that basically says "The peacetime structures of the army appeal to people whose psychology  makes them unfit to command in times of war, however competent they may in peacetime." His conclusion is that, given you accept his analysis, it's a miracle that so many military commanders are so competent, rather than it being surprising so many are rubbish.

I see the same thing going on here. GMing has a deep-seated appeal for people that want to be in control. Unfortunately, although they may be great GMs working  on their own, they  are simply not cut out to be a GM as part of a group. In fact, they see 'group GMing' as a threat, and end up, probably unconsciously, doing whatever they can to undermine it.  

Fortunately, unlike military commanders in times of war, we're not forced to group GM unless we want to. If you find the idea makes you uncomfortable, it's probably best that you don't enter the potentially threatening psychological arena it represents. After all, we shouldn't allow our own 'inner demons' to spoil anyone else's fun.

Quote from: Glazer;454524I see the same thing going on here. GMing has a deep-seated appeal for people that want to be in control. Unfortunately, although they may be great GMs working  on their own, they  are simply not cut out to be a GM as part of a group. In fact, they see 'group GMing' as a threat, and end up, probably unconsciously, doing whatever they can to undermine it.  

I have to seriously question your premise that wanting to be DM is about control.  I only have my own experiences to draw on, but in our group all five members have DM'd and will do so again.  No-one has issues with 'relinquishing control' when they return to being a PC. In fact, in my experience its a positive. Having experienced the challenge of DMing, we are much more supportive of the DM as players.  

For me, the main motives for being DM is to realise the vision of the sort of game I would love to play and to, dare I say it, give enjoyment to others.

Quote from: Glazer;454524GMing has a deep-seated appeal for people that want to be in control. Unfortunately, although they may be great GMs working  on their own, they  are simply not cut out to be a GM as part of a group. In fact, they see 'group GMing' as a threat, and end up, probably unconsciously, doing whatever they can to undermine it.

In my own experience, control freaks make very poor GMs.

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.

Quote from: Fiasco;454845You 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 agree, that is the kind of thing that, if you were to have a multiple-GM campaign, would be an ideal kind of scenario: two different areas of the same game world; you have your GM for the "western region" and your GM for the "eastern region" or whatever, and events from one end up affecting the other.  Players would also likely play two different sets of characters..

RPGPundit

Again, I don't see why it should be a problem. As long as the GMs keep a good line of communication and are not dicks, things should work out well.

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

From what I gather (I have a tiny experience co-GMing) the efficient mindset for this game style is:
Do not prepare too much, flexibility matters most. Co-GMs should abide guidelines but it would be counter-productive to describe minute details about NPCs for instance. Co-GMs should be able to soar from the guidelines, not get bogged down by the 200 pages about the royal family of Aaaargh written last weekend by their obsessive fellow GM. Co-GMs should synchronize often in order to present a coherent world in motion. But above all co-GMs have to accept there's going to be blank pages in the setting they're collaborating on. They have to accept someone else filling those blanks.

I'm not surprised you react negatively to this game style: this sharing of GM responsibilities bares similarities with story-gaming, at least the part where authority about the setting is shared among people.        

But it doesn't have to be this way. When you roll on a random table, for a treasure, an encounter or something else, you don't feel like you're loosing the ability to GM, right? It's more like: "the PCs have gone off track, I have no idea what should be behind that hill, I might as well get inspired by a random table"   There's a little bit of risk doing this. The roll might choose something you have a hard time fitting with the rest of your game ("really? a gang of pirates? in the mountain?") but many GMs find it's worth the pain. The use of random tables brings fresh stuff to your game. Stuff you wouldn't come up with on your own. Maybe co-GMing is a bit like that, like using a random table on anything that was left vague during the game preparation?

Well, its more like "using random tables and spending half the time with some dude who isn't nearly as good as I am trying to run the world".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;455097Well, its more like "using random tables and spending half the time with some dude who isn't nearly as good as I am trying to run the world".

RPGPundit

Or somebody of comparable skill. There might even be synergy between the tow GMs' strong points.

If you have an ironclad conviction that any given GM necessarily "isn't nearly as good" as you are, that's going to cause problems. But some groups have benefited from the GMs collaborating, even without a lead or director GM. The integrity of the GM's singular vision for the campaign world isn't paramount in the ability of the GM to GM. It really just isn't. I am not talking about some kind of storytelling shared narrative authority nonsense - when the GM hits the table, he is the GM. But the ability to cooperate and to use others' input in a constructive way are important skills in the GM skillset, the leadership skillset, and the adult social behavior skillset.

Several people have helped run a multiple GM campaign and had good experiences doing it. You can tell yourself that it's rose colored glasses, or that it would have been 'better yet' with one GM, no matter the other circumstances, knock yourself out, discount any evidence that doesn't fit your theory. I've also got this great dissertation on bat weiners you might like.

Multi GM campaigns work best in campaigns designed for multiple GMs. Simple, really. It also helps when people are mature and don't shoot from the ego. The GM's authority is paramount as for a regular campaign. It's just that the person with the title changes more frequently.

Some people get a little precious about GMing. More people can do a good job of it than they might like to think...

Perhaps I should say "nearly as good at running the world the way I run it".  The issue to me is that you are ultimately engaging in a compromise of your style.  I can accept that for some that is not necessarily a big deal, and it can be more or less so depending on who they're doing it with, but in my case at least I can't envision anyone to do it with that it wouldn't feel like it was "cramping my style".

The only way I could imagine doing this is some kind of exercise in shared-world creation, or an aforementioned separation of the world into different "autonomous GMing regions" with probably what is closer to two simultaneous campaigns being run in different parts of the same world.  Something like that could potentially be interesting.

RPGPundit

I just turned over my game to our most novice GM and made a character. Its the E6 Greek and Persian setting I'd been working on for quite a while. For sure, E6 is easier to run for the novice than normal D&D.

That said, all of the structure, house rules, NPCs and cities I'd written up and that this player was familiar with I think really helped him feel more comfortable GMing. I still helped him put together his game, but I've never seen this guy manage to run a game without crashing and burning.

I was nervous for him because the people he was running for were mostly all real experienced players and one or two of them can be difficult people. It turned out beautiful though. He pulled it all together and ran a really entertaining game.

So this might be another reason for the rotating GM - to create a set of training wheels for a novice GM so that he can get practice and feel more confident people are going to be behind it.

Well, that's an interesting report, Cranewings. But sorry, were you just letting him run one session; or was this a permanent hand-over of the campaign to him? Or will you be alternating?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;455845Well, that's an interesting report, Cranewings. But sorry, were you just letting him run one session; or was this a permanent hand-over of the campaign to him? Or will you be alternating?

RPGPundit

I originally brought it up as temporary, sense no one liked the idea. I did want out because of pressure at school. It went well enough that he is going to take it for a few months. People got pretty attached to there characters and I think I was right in guessing that those characters were more important than who is moderating them.

A guy that I gamed with in the Navy told me about how his original group did a Shared game. This was AD&D in the late-70's to mid-80's in San Diego. Each GM had his own game world and the PCs would play in one world for an adventure or two and then when they were switching GMs they would encounter something (magic portal/obelisk/whatever) that would transport them to the next GM's world and have an adventure there. So, effectively, you had parallel worlds running at the same time and Characters going from world to world on an adventure.

Like I said before, there's many ways to do it, just because you can't conceive of it working doesn't mean that it is crap...

We had our third session with the GM that took over my game. I'm helping him less and less. His game has been pretty good.

I guess like a lot of novice GMs, he is shaky at the start of the game but once he gets into a groove it goes pretty well.

I think one of the biggest problems is ownership of the game. I originally advised him to try to keep what I wrote the same and work with it or fill in the gaps. He's really been keeping the party off the beaten path, I think because of it. That advice was a mistake and I should have really relinquished creative control off the bat.

Quote from: Cranewings;459172We had our third session with the GM that took over my game. I'm helping him less and less. His game has been pretty good.

I guess like a lot of novice GMs, he is shaky at the start of the game but once he gets into a groove it goes pretty well.

I think one of the biggest problems is ownership of the game. I originally advised him to try to keep what I wrote the same and work with it or fill in the gaps. He's really been keeping the party off the beaten path, I think because of it. That advice was a mistake and I should have really relinquished creative control off the bat.

What game are you running again - is this pathfinder E6? What kind of setting - and is he mostly running in a separate region?

Quote from: Cole;459173What game are you running again - is this pathfinder E6? What kind of setting - and is he mostly running in a separate region?

This is my greek / persian iron age E6/ Super Heroes Pathfinder setting I developed for the map Silver Lion did. When I was running, the party traveled up the Royal Road through Zathurm (Persia) as merchants to the Legus Atturim (Athenian League) city of Sikyon, on the boarder with Zathurm. The new guy has kept the game in Sikyon, using a few of the NPCs I put in that town. I barely used them, so there wasn't much developed in this town. That said, for the last three games he pretty much put the party out in the field and hasn't had them interact with the city or culture much, other than one ruler and a couple of mages.

Quote from: Cranewings;459175This is my greek / persian iron age E6/ Super Heroes Pathfinder setting I developed for the map Silver Lion did. When I was running, the party traveled up the Royal Road through Zathurm (Persia) as merchants to the Legus Atturim (Athenian League) city of Sikyon, on the boarder with Zathurm. The new guy has kept the game in Sikyon, using a few of the NPCs I put in that town. I barely used them, so there wasn't much developed in this town. That said, for the last three games he pretty much put the party out in the field and hasn't had them interact with the city or culture much, other than one ruler and a couple of mages.

Good to hear it is going well. Which map is this you mentioned?

Here it is, took a minute to find online:

(http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa343/CraneStrike/FantasyMap.jpg?t=1297922674)