alternating dms? good idea or trouble? [Archive] - Wizards Community

alternating dms? good idea or trouble? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
kimura121
07-06-07, 04:52 PM a few of my long time dnd buddies want to start a game up. all of us have dm'd in the past but it has been a few years since we've played and even longer since we had a long running game. in an effort to keep everyone interested and not put all the work on a single person i thought we could alternate dming. i figure each dm runs 2 or 3 sessions or where ever there is a logical breaking point. we each will have our own pc and play them even when we dm, avoiding metagaming of course and most likely staying out of the spotlight. everyone gets to play and doesnt get burned out doing all the adventure prep. i think its a good idea but if anyone has pros or cons to add or anything we should watch out for i would appreciate it. thanks.
Legendarius
07-06-07, 05:21 PM Sounds like a good idea overall - the catch of course is it's hard to have campaign secrets evolve over time since sometimes you're a player, sometimes a DM.

Assuming you don't want to run different PCs for each DM, then an idea that might be interesting is if you as a group (at least all of the players who will be taking turns DMing) come up with a rough high level campaign outline. Then find yourself an interested third party who won't be playing (perhaps people from on here) to work with your DMs individually to come up with a general flow and maybe a common backstory and secrets that some DMs know part of and others know part of, that sort of thing. It might be that the big finale at 20th level is something this one person runs once, maybe in a special marathon campaign closing adventure.

Either way, make it so that certain NPCs/locations belong to certain DMs. You get Castle Draconis, your buddy gets Lonelyville, his sister gets the Inn of Drunken Adventurers, etc.

L
Forfeit
07-06-07, 06:04 PM It will depends on the kind of adventures you set. If its the regular dungeon crawling, no problem there. If its a political plot with a lot of secrets, factions, betrayal and tons of NPC, it probabily wont.
Babson99
07-09-07, 02:12 AM The only time I proposed doing this, my DM vetoed it. It was his campaign, and he didn't want me mucking about with it.

An alternate idea that I've used many times: each DM has his own campaign. As you suggested, switch campaigns every two sessions. This prevents the DMing-your-own-character problem, and still keeps the time commitment low.
Alric
07-09-07, 03:11 AM Well it really depends on how you get along with each other. The only real problem with it is, you might annoy each other if you switch dm in the middle of the story and the new one makes changes. If your going for a lighter story and don't mind being a bit silly, or do short adventures and finish before switching, it should be fine.

If you can avoid stuff overlaping to much you should be fine though. If your the kind of dm that only plans out a few games ahead of time, it may even work out very well. If your the kind that plans out the entire adventure, its just not going to work.
Class_A_Infidel
07-09-07, 03:38 AM Under no circumstance. Unless you're playing a mindless kick-in-the-door with no degree of roleplaying whatsoever. In that case, go ahead.
Nid_Food
07-10-07, 08:05 AM In my group, we currently have 8 people, 4 of which are willing to DM. Each of the DMs has their own seperate world, and everyone has a different PC in that DMs world. When a DM is up, they run their game for 1-2 months or so (we meet weekly) and end their game at a good stopping point. Then the next DM will pick up.

We like this method alot. This way, people get to use different PCs and DMs don't get burned out trying to prepare every week.
Misfit815
07-10-07, 10:41 AM In my group, we currently have 8 people, 4 of which are willing to DM.

Must be nice...

There are 6 in my group. In addition to me, there is one other person willing and able to DM. He's actually replacing someone who just left, so despite the fact that I've done this before with success, this is still untested with our group. Nonetheless, I expect it to work out very well.

Our plan is for me to continue the campaign, but for him to DM an occasional one-shot session. This keeps the players focused in just one campaign, but gives me a much-needed break and a chance to play rather than DM. The one-shots also give us the opportunity to try out different character types, as well as giving the other DM the freedom to be deadly without long-term consequences.

J
Feriin
07-10-07, 11:45 AM Out of the 6 of that play, 3 of us are regular DMs.

Now we all play in the same world, all of our characters can meet each other too. ( very rare when it happens though).

As to each person Dming , we all have our own campaigns (no sharing secrets during the campaign itself).

Other than the minor problem that arises here and there it works pretty well.

Think of it kinda of like several stories being told at once that intersect at certain points here and there.
KillerVole
07-10-07, 11:22 PM My group does this. It's like trekking barefoot through the Nine Hells of Baator. As the most available DM, I am constantly stuck dealing with mistakes made by others, group overflow (why must some DMs ditch sessions randomly?), and totally unbalanced loot (one DM gave a PC a nightmare... at level 3!).

I recommend different PCs for each campaign. It spares everyone a headache.
zorgling25
07-10-07, 11:30 PM In my group, I run the main campaign. Sometimes though, some or all of us simply don't feel like playing the main campaign, or I'm not quite ready for a session. In this case, we have two "backup" DMs that have their own adventures, which are shorter, and we can usually finish them in one or two sessions.
Talisman
07-10-07, 11:45 PM I guess I'm lucky. My group has 6-7 people, of which...6-7 are GMs. We generally do what Nid Food described...each interested GM has his own campaign, and we switch out every few months.

We also allow "Guest GMs". When one person is running, if someone else comes up with a great adventure idea set in their world, the regular GM takes a session off and the guest GM runs. Obviously, this requires a level of maturity and respect, not to mention a good grasp of the rules. Standard rules for this sort of thing are "don't kill off major NPCs," "don't screw up the ongoing plot," and "don't hand out ridiculous treaure."

A friend and I are currently considering duo-GMing a gestalt campaign. I think it'll work, since we both respect each other and are decent GMs on our own. As Legendarius suggested, each GM should have his private parts of the overall campaign...i.e., "Sir Evilmurder the Death Knight is my BBEG...Qrxchl the Mind Flayer is yours."
trapspringer
07-10-07, 11:51 PM It works with smallish groups of adults who don't take the game too seriously.

Anyone who tells you it always works is a power gamin' hack-and-slashin' two dimensional player, and anyone who says it never works is an elitist snob.

Further, it's not impossible to develop complex and intricate plots. Just remember the #1 rule of improv: never say no.
cwhs
07-11-07, 09:29 AM Under no circumstance. Unless you're playing a mindless kick-in-the-door with no degree of roleplaying whatsoever. In that case, go ahead.

This is imo very bad advice. Sorry:)

the rpg Ars Magica has at its core, a mechanic of rotating gamemasters. (most) All NPC's, locations etc. are public domain, and it is up to the current gamemaster to use these as tools in telling a good story. The saga (Ars lingo for campaign and campaignworld) is usually cocreated by all players, NPC's are typically played during sessions by its original creator. This means a player must sometimes handle several npc's in addition to playing his own character. If a player or GM is inspired by another players npc, and needs it for a story purpose, then he borrows it. If players can handle not metagaming, it works fine. Campaign secrets are introduced by the gm (or even players) during actual play. Works best for a loose campaign style.

The same thing could easily be done in DnD. Adventures would probably be different from classic dnd (kick-in-door-kill-things-loot-rinse-repeat). But i think it could lead to very cool urban campaigns, with several minor plotlines introduced or run by beta GM's, when the Alpha is busy. Probably best in moderate sized groups, 6-7 players(inc. gm). Probably works best with a somewhat mature crowd:)

Campaign idea: do a cooperative brainstorm and then design your own thieves guild (roster etc.), and a brief overview of the city it is located in. Delegate detailed construction of nobility, law-enforcement, clergy etc. to the players. Each player creates their primary guildmember PC and its nemesis (a rival thieves guild, bountyhunter, anything etc.). Each player creates a few other notable npc contacts. Additional places, npc's etc. are introduced by the current gm (or if he is busy, by players), and are considered public property. If need be, players can veto changes not made by the gm (not recomended though), or assign a npc or place as their "property" (usually because he/she wants to use it for story purposes). Other players should then leave things alone, as much as possible.
Starting gm sets the stage and introduces any number of hooks, in addition to actually finishing a short storyline. Next GM can introduce his own storyarc or tie up any loose ends from earlier storylines. A gm's pc is either away on another asignment or played as an npc (maybe not a good idea in dnd though). Award xp to the gm pc as if he had participated in the adventure, and treasure to match the pc wealth level. Works best if the campaign isn't to lethal or players can accept loss of a pc without avenging it when they become dm themselves:)
Toran_A_Sunder
07-11-07, 09:50 AM A few years back, myself and 3 other friends got together and started a Round Robin DMing game. Not only were we each DMs at one point or another, but we had our own characters which we sometimes played while DMing, sometimes didn't, depending on how complex and intricate the game we were running happened to be.

Between the four of us, we developed our own unique campaign setting, played some of the most memorable and favorite of characters ever created, and to date it was the greatest game I have ever played in. It lasted for about 2 years and chances are eventually we'll pick it back up again. I have more stories from that game than any other and the character I played remains to this day my favorite (Half-celestial human bard/sorcerer/rogue).

Go for it. It has the potential to be abslutely awesome.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
kimura121 07-06-07, 04:52 PM	a few of my long time dnd buddies want to start a game up. all of us have dm'd in the past but it has been a few years since we've played and even longer since we had a long running game. in an effort to keep everyone interested and not put all the work on a single person i thought we could alternate dming. i figure each dm runs 2 or 3 sessions or where ever there is a logical breaking point. we each will have our own pc and play them even when we dm, avoiding metagaming of course and most likely staying out of the spotlight. everyone gets to play and doesnt get burned out doing all the adventure prep. i think its a good idea but if anyone has pros or cons to add or anything we should watch out for i would appreciate it. thanks.
Legendarius 07-06-07, 05:21 PM	Sounds like a good idea overall - the catch of course is it's hard to have campaign secrets evolve over time since sometimes you're a player, sometimes a DM. Assuming you don't want to run different PCs for each DM, then an idea that might be interesting is if you as a group (at least all of the players who will be taking turns DMing) come up with a rough high level campaign outline. Then find yourself an interested third party who won't be playing (perhaps people from on here) to work with your DMs individually to come up with a general flow and maybe a common backstory and secrets that some DMs know part of and others know part of, that sort of thing. It might be that the big finale at 20th level is something this one person runs once, maybe in a special marathon campaign closing adventure. Either way, make it so that certain NPCs/locations belong to certain DMs. You get Castle Draconis, your buddy gets Lonelyville, his sister gets the Inn of Drunken Adventurers, etc. L
Forfeit 07-06-07, 06:04 PM	It will depends on the kind of adventures you set. If its the regular dungeon crawling, no problem there. If its a political plot with a lot of secrets, factions, betrayal and tons of NPC, it probabily wont.
Babson99 07-09-07, 02:12 AM	The only time I proposed doing this, my DM vetoed it. It was his campaign, and he didn't want me mucking about with it. An alternate idea that I've used many times: each DM has his own campaign. As you suggested, switch campaigns every two sessions. This prevents the DMing-your-own-character problem, and still keeps the time commitment low.
Alric 07-09-07, 03:11 AM	Well it really depends on how you get along with each other. The only real problem with it is, you might annoy each other if you switch dm in the middle of the story and the new one makes changes. If your going for a lighter story and don't mind being a bit silly, or do short adventures and finish before switching, it should be fine. If you can avoid stuff overlaping to much you should be fine though. If your the kind of dm that only plans out a few games ahead of time, it may even work out very well. If your the kind that plans out the entire adventure, its just not going to work.
Class_A_Infidel 07-09-07, 03:38 AM	Under no circumstance. Unless you're playing a mindless kick-in-the-door with no degree of roleplaying whatsoever. In that case, go ahead.
Nid_Food 07-10-07, 08:05 AM	In my group, we currently have 8 people, 4 of which are willing to DM. Each of the DMs has their own seperate world, and everyone has a different PC in that DMs world. When a DM is up, they run their game for 1-2 months or so (we meet weekly) and end their game at a good stopping point. Then the next DM will pick up. We like this method alot. This way, people get to use different PCs and DMs don't get burned out trying to prepare every week.
Misfit815 07-10-07, 10:41 AM	In my group, we currently have 8 people, 4 of which are willing to DM. Must be nice... There are 6 in my group. In addition to me, there is one other person willing and able to DM. He's actually replacing someone who just left, so despite the fact that I've done this before with success, this is still untested with our group. Nonetheless, I expect it to work out very well. Our plan is for me to continue the campaign, but for him to DM an occasional one-shot session. This keeps the players focused in just one campaign, but gives me a much-needed break and a chance to play rather than DM. The one-shots also give us the opportunity to try out different character types, as well as giving the other DM the freedom to be deadly without long-term consequences. J
Feriin 07-10-07, 11:45 AM	Out of the 6 of that play, 3 of us are regular DMs. Now we all play in the same world, all of our characters can meet each other too. ( very rare when it happens though). As to each person Dming , we all have our own campaigns (no sharing secrets during the campaign itself). Other than the minor problem that arises here and there it works pretty well. Think of it kinda of like several stories being told at once that intersect at certain points here and there.
KillerVole 07-10-07, 11:22 PM	My group does this. It's like trekking barefoot through the Nine Hells of Baator. As the most available DM, I am constantly stuck dealing with mistakes made by others, group overflow (why must some DMs ditch sessions randomly?), and totally unbalanced loot (one DM gave a PC a nightmare... at level 3!). I recommend different PCs for each campaign. It spares everyone a headache.
zorgling25 07-10-07, 11:30 PM	In my group, I run the main campaign. Sometimes though, some or all of us simply don't feel like playing the main campaign, or I'm not quite ready for a session. In this case, we have two "backup" DMs that have their own adventures, which are shorter, and we can usually finish them in one or two sessions.
Talisman 07-10-07, 11:45 PM	I guess I'm lucky. My group has 6-7 people, of which...6-7 are GMs. We generally do what Nid Food described...each interested GM has his own campaign, and we switch out every few months. We also allow "Guest GMs". When one person is running, if someone else comes up with a great adventure idea set in their world, the regular GM takes a session off and the guest GM runs. Obviously, this requires a level of maturity and respect, not to mention a good grasp of the rules. Standard rules for this sort of thing are "don't kill off major NPCs," "don't screw up the ongoing plot," and "don't hand out ridiculous treaure." A friend and I are currently considering duo-GMing a gestalt campaign. I think it'll work, since we both respect each other and are decent GMs on our own. As Legendarius suggested, each GM should have his private parts of the overall campaign...i.e., "Sir Evilmurder the Death Knight is my BBEG...Qrxchl the Mind Flayer is yours."
trapspringer 07-10-07, 11:51 PM	It works with smallish groups of adults who don't take the game too seriously. Anyone who tells you it always works is a power gamin' hack-and-slashin' two dimensional player, and anyone who says it never works is an elitist snob. Further, it's not impossible to develop complex and intricate plots. Just remember the #1 rule of improv: never say no.
cwhs 07-11-07, 09:29 AM	Under no circumstance. Unless you're playing a mindless kick-in-the-door with no degree of roleplaying whatsoever. In that case, go ahead. This is imo very bad advice. Sorry:) the rpg Ars Magica has at its core, a mechanic of rotating gamemasters. (most) All NPC's, locations etc. are public domain, and it is up to the current gamemaster to use these as tools in telling a good story. The saga (Ars lingo for campaign and campaignworld) is usually cocreated by all players, NPC's are typically played during sessions by its original creator. This means a player must sometimes handle several npc's in addition to playing his own character. If a player or GM is inspired by another players npc, and needs it for a story purpose, then he borrows it. If players can handle not metagaming, it works fine. Campaign secrets are introduced by the gm (or even players) during actual play. Works best for a loose campaign style. The same thing could easily be done in DnD. Adventures would probably be different from classic dnd (kick-in-door-kill-things-loot-rinse-repeat). But i think it could lead to very cool urban campaigns, with several minor plotlines introduced or run by beta GM's, when the Alpha is busy. Probably best in moderate sized groups, 6-7 players(inc. gm). Probably works best with a somewhat mature crowd:) Campaign idea: do a cooperative brainstorm and then design your own thieves guild (roster etc.), and a brief overview of the city it is located in. Delegate detailed construction of nobility, law-enforcement, clergy etc. to the players. Each player creates their primary guildmember PC and its nemesis (a rival thieves guild, bountyhunter, anything etc.). Each player creates a few other notable npc contacts. Additional places, npc's etc. are introduced by the current gm (or if he is busy, by players), and are considered public property. If need be, players can veto changes not made by the gm (not recomended though), or assign a npc or place as their "property" (usually because he/she wants to use it for story purposes). Other players should then leave things alone, as much as possible. Starting gm sets the stage and introduces any number of hooks, in addition to actually finishing a short storyline. Next GM can introduce his own storyarc or tie up any loose ends from earlier storylines. A gm's pc is either away on another asignment or played as an npc (maybe not a good idea in dnd though). Award xp to the gm pc as if he had participated in the adventure, and treasure to match the pc wealth level. Works best if the campaign isn't to lethal or players can accept loss of a pc without avenging it when they become dm themselves:)
Toran_A_Sunder 07-11-07, 09:50 AM	A few years back, myself and 3 other friends got together and started a Round Robin DMing game. Not only were we each DMs at one point or another, but we had our own characters which we sometimes played while DMing, sometimes didn't, depending on how complex and intricate the game we were running happened to be. Between the four of us, we developed our own unique campaign setting, played some of the most memorable and favorite of characters ever created, and to date it was the greatest game I have ever played in. It lasted for about 2 years and chances are eventually we'll pick it back up again. I have more stories from that game than any other and the character I played remains to this day my favorite (Half-celestial human bard/sorcerer/rogue). Go for it. It has the potential to be abslutely awesome.