Co-DMing - Does it Work? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Co-DMing - Does it Work? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Reign_of_Ice
03-24-07, 04:08 AM My question is if any of you have ever tried taking on an aprentice DM who helps you run your campaign and plays some of your NPCs?
I was wondering if this would work - I'm basicly thinking someone who I could bounce ideas off of, and help me handle a large group of players.
I wanted to see if anyone has experience with this and has any thoughts on the matter that could give me insight or help me out.
Sim_antix
03-24-07, 05:34 PM Yes and no.

It can greatly reduce the amount of work you need to be doing but also two seperate minds can disagree which is never a good thing when the two of you are supposed to be running the game smoothly.

To sum up breifly try making sure that each of you is responsible for seperate details to handle so that there isnt a whole lot of chances for disagreements and therefor problems.
celloshane
03-25-07, 04:23 PM I've been considering writing an essay for Redgar's on this subject, but I haven't been able to run a game to test my system. In my version, one DM would run the "bad guys" - setting up encounters, drawing maps, roleplaying npc's who are less than neutral, ect... The other DM would be the "good guys" - running npc allies and handling overall rules abjudication. This gives the players a chance to be open with the DM without expecting subconcious meta-gaming on the DM's part.
The major drawback is that both DM's need to be on the same page at all times. There needs to be a clear breakdown of who does what, as well as clear communication on how the game proggresses.
If you plan to give it a try, let me know, I'd like to follow along with your experiences. It would be instumental in writing my essay.
Tichrimo
03-25-07, 08:22 PM Wouldn't the DM-1 = good guys/DM-2 = bad guys tip off the players in some circumstances? (Granted it's meta-game, but unavoidable if the players are awake...)

"Why is DM-2 conducting our seemingly casual conversation with the inkeeper?"
"Why is DM-1 conducting our seemingly confrontational conversation with the red dragon?"

To eliminate this as a factor, consider having DM-1 be "before initiative is rolled" and DM-2 be "after initiative is rolled". This would require more hand-offs between the two, but wouldn't make the division of labour tied to the story itself, but to the characters' actions within the story.
mvincent
03-26-07, 11:48 AM My question is if any of you have ever tried taking on an aprentice DM who helps you run your campaign and plays some of your NPCs?I've never seen this work in (what I consider) an enjoyable manner. The assistance is often bored, and the his presence can seem awkward to the players. I have seen two very experienced DM's work well together in sync (in an adventure that was mainly combat), but that wouldn't apply here.

It would likely be better to have your assistant run his own PC (maybe a cleric or someone else that provides support or direction), so he can be viewed by the others as another player that provides you with lots of assistance, rather than as a co-DM with nothing to do. His PC should be more of a minor player (i.e. minimal spotlight time), and he should only use out-of-character information (if ever) to benefit the flow of the game (rather than his own benefit or some-such).
jadehawk
03-26-07, 01:28 PM I have actually seen this work, that there were 2 DMs at once, one mostly pencil pushing. In fact it worked out well, though it worked out for two main reasons. 1) there was a large party with several NPCs (cohorts, familiars, and animal compansions)...2) the second DM was aspiring to DM his own campaign but needed a lot of brushing up on the rules.

As a result there were plenty of things to keep the aspiring DM busy, which offset the troubles of the primary DM and it also was a valuable learning experience for the secondary DM. I would suggest it would work if the second DM were humble enough to understand they needed to practice before sitting in the DM chair all by their onesy and if there was enough side work to keep the secondary DM busy.

NPC control was also a nice job to pass off because it kept the secondary DM interacting with the players, which made his part more fun than simply being a scribe for the primary DM.
celloshane
03-26-07, 05:26 PM Wouldn't the DM-1 = good guys/DM-2 = bad guys tip off the players in some circumstances? (Granted it's meta-game, but unavoidable if the players are awake...)

"Why is DM-2 conducting our seemingly casual conversation with the inkeeper?"
"Why is DM-1 conducting our seemingly confrontational conversation with the red dragon?"

To eliminate this as a factor, consider having DM-1 be "before initiative is rolled" and DM-2 be "after initiative is rolled". This would require more hand-offs between the two, but wouldn't make the division of labour tied to the story itself, but to the characters' actions within the story.

I have considered this, and that's part of why I need some actual play-testing of my ideas before I present them. There would certainly have to be some sort of give and take between roleplaying for the two DM's; imagine the PC's suprise however when a trusted friend is suddenly taken over by DM 2!

Again, if anyone is interested in trying something like this out, let me know.
Gottwick
03-26-07, 05:48 PM I've tried this in other games and it was a failure.

The main DM can't plan for everything, so the assistant DM will only have an idea what to do. When it comes to plot and roleplaying, the assistant DM can really mess up the story. You don't have to be a control freak to be gritting your teeth when someone else plays your NPC. "Why is he roleplaying the elven king as a comedic fool?!"

And having an inexperienced DM run combat is a recipe for party wipes or very easy encounters.

My advice is to alternate DMs. Have the inexperienced one run very short dungeons to learn.
DarkNick
03-26-07, 06:43 PM The closest I have come to it is having a player run the odd short side adventure now and then. I played his character at those times. It worked pretty well. I gave the player some limitations (don't give them these sorts of items, or too much money).

Gave me a refreashing break. Seemed to work well. Sometimes it is hard letting go of the control though.
PhaedrusXY
03-26-07, 10:50 PM I've seen this type of system used to decent effect. It is especially good when the "main" DM isn't as familiar with the rules as the co-DM, but is otherwise a good gamemaster..
KingMarl
03-27-07, 12:45 PM We do this once in a while, mainly at conventions during a large combat, and it works really well, that way the (single) DM isn't trying to manage a lot of creatures with a lot of abilities.

I've never seen this used during anything but combat, and I can't really see it working out all that well in anything that required non-combat interaction, unless there was a party split.

Now, in event of a party split, it would be a great thing. Then you don't have half of the people sitting around doing nothing and drifting out of the game while the DM deals with the other half.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Reign_of_Ice 03-24-07, 04:08 AM	My question is if any of you have ever tried taking on an aprentice DM who helps you run your campaign and plays some of your NPCs? I was wondering if this would work - I'm basicly thinking someone who I could bounce ideas off of, and help me handle a large group of players. I wanted to see if anyone has experience with this and has any thoughts on the matter that could give me insight or help me out.
Sim_antix 03-24-07, 05:34 PM	Yes and no. It can greatly reduce the amount of work you need to be doing but also two seperate minds can disagree which is never a good thing when the two of you are supposed to be running the game smoothly. To sum up breifly try making sure that each of you is responsible for seperate details to handle so that there isnt a whole lot of chances for disagreements and therefor problems.
celloshane 03-25-07, 04:23 PM	I've been considering writing an essay for Redgar's on this subject, but I haven't been able to run a game to test my system. In my version, one DM would run the "bad guys" - setting up encounters, drawing maps, roleplaying npc's who are less than neutral, ect... The other DM would be the "good guys" - running npc allies and handling overall rules abjudication. This gives the players a chance to be open with the DM without expecting subconcious meta-gaming on the DM's part. The major drawback is that both DM's need to be on the same page at all times. There needs to be a clear breakdown of who does what, as well as clear communication on how the game proggresses. If you plan to give it a try, let me know, I'd like to follow along with your experiences. It would be instumental in writing my essay.
Tichrimo 03-25-07, 08:22 PM	Wouldn't the DM-1 = good guys/DM-2 = bad guys tip off the players in some circumstances? (Granted it's meta-game, but unavoidable if the players are awake...) "Why is DM-2 conducting our seemingly casual conversation with the inkeeper?" "Why is DM-1 conducting our seemingly confrontational conversation with the red dragon?" To eliminate this as a factor, consider having DM-1 be "before initiative is rolled" and DM-2 be "after initiative is rolled". This would require more hand-offs between the two, but wouldn't make the division of labour tied to the story itself, but to the characters' actions within the story.
mvincent 03-26-07, 11:48 AM	My question is if any of you have ever tried taking on an aprentice DM who helps you run your campaign and plays some of your NPCs?I've never seen this work in (what I consider) an enjoyable manner. The assistance is often bored, and the his presence can seem awkward to the players. I have seen two very experienced DM's work well together in sync (in an adventure that was mainly combat), but that wouldn't apply here. It would likely be better to have your assistant run his own PC (maybe a cleric or someone else that provides support or direction), so he can be viewed by the others as another player that provides you with lots of assistance, rather than as a co-DM with nothing to do. His PC should be more of a minor player (i.e. minimal spotlight time), and he should only use out-of-character information (if ever) to benefit the flow of the game (rather than his own benefit or some-such).
jadehawk 03-26-07, 01:28 PM	I have actually seen this work, that there were 2 DMs at once, one mostly pencil pushing. In fact it worked out well, though it worked out for two main reasons. 1) there was a large party with several NPCs (cohorts, familiars, and animal compansions)...2) the second DM was aspiring to DM his own campaign but needed a lot of brushing up on the rules. As a result there were plenty of things to keep the aspiring DM busy, which offset the troubles of the primary DM and it also was a valuable learning experience for the secondary DM. I would suggest it would work if the second DM were humble enough to understand they needed to practice before sitting in the DM chair all by their onesy and if there was enough side work to keep the secondary DM busy. NPC control was also a nice job to pass off because it kept the secondary DM interacting with the players, which made his part more fun than simply being a scribe for the primary DM.
celloshane 03-26-07, 05:26 PM	Wouldn't the DM-1 = good guys/DM-2 = bad guys tip off the players in some circumstances? (Granted it's meta-game, but unavoidable if the players are awake...) "Why is DM-2 conducting our seemingly casual conversation with the inkeeper?" "Why is DM-1 conducting our seemingly confrontational conversation with the red dragon?" To eliminate this as a factor, consider having DM-1 be "before initiative is rolled" and DM-2 be "after initiative is rolled". This would require more hand-offs between the two, but wouldn't make the division of labour tied to the story itself, but to the characters' actions within the story. I have considered this, and that's part of why I need some actual play-testing of my ideas before I present them. There would certainly have to be some sort of give and take between roleplaying for the two DM's; imagine the PC's suprise however when a trusted friend is suddenly taken over by DM 2! Again, if anyone is interested in trying something like this out, let me know.
Gottwick 03-26-07, 05:48 PM	I've tried this in other games and it was a failure. The main DM can't plan for everything, so the assistant DM will only have an idea what to do. When it comes to plot and roleplaying, the assistant DM can really mess up the story. You don't have to be a control freak to be gritting your teeth when someone else plays your NPC. "Why is he roleplaying the elven king as a comedic fool?!" And having an inexperienced DM run combat is a recipe for party wipes or very easy encounters. My advice is to alternate DMs. Have the inexperienced one run very short dungeons to learn.
DarkNick 03-26-07, 06:43 PM	The closest I have come to it is having a player run the odd short side adventure now and then. I played his character at those times. It worked pretty well. I gave the player some limitations (don't give them these sorts of items, or too much money). Gave me a refreashing break. Seemed to work well. Sometimes it is hard letting go of the control though.
PhaedrusXY 03-26-07, 10:50 PM	I've seen this type of system used to decent effect. It is especially good when the "main" DM isn't as familiar with the rules as the co-DM, but is otherwise a good gamemaster..
KingMarl 03-27-07, 12:45 PM	We do this once in a while, mainly at conventions during a large combat, and it works really well, that way the (single) DM isn't trying to manage a lot of creatures with a lot of abilities. I've never seen this used during anything but combat, and I can't really see it working out all that well in anything that required non-combat interaction, unless there was a party split. Now, in event of a party split, it would be a great thing. Then you don't have half of the people sitting around doing nothing and drifting out of the game while the DM deals with the other half.