Dual-Core Action! (Games with Multiple GMs)

[The Hive Custodian]

The traditional model of RPGs is that there is a single GM who runs the game for several players, who each control a single character in a single party. While this model works, it is not the only one that does so. BigRedRod mentioned an alternative in an earlier thread, specifically that of each player controlling multiple characters or something other than a character. Here I want to introduce another such alternative: two (or more) GMs.

Having two GMs running a game would certainly involve some complexities. You might lose the unified vision that a single GM can bring to the game. The GMs also need to work out posting and ruling conventions between them. Discussions between the GMs may take up valuable time.

On the other hand, there are some potential benefits. Two GMs have more creative power than one alone. If one GM gets taken out by life circumstances, the other GM can still keep the game running. The chances of at least one GM being on at any given time and being able to push the game along is greater. Also, having another perspective on the action may prevent some of the more unreasonable rulings a single GM might make alone.

Has anybody seen it done before? Do you think this is a good idea?

[nightinverse]

I believe it is a commendable idea, and hopefully will be embarking upon a test of it soon.

Of crucial importance to an endeavour of this sort is the relationship between the prospective co-GMs. They must be able to effectively communicate and evaluate, preferably with little room for conflict - or added room to accomodate the needs of each.

[Mercutio]

Has anybody seen it done before? Do you think this is a good idea?

The short answer - YES! Treehouse and I co-DM The Red Hand of Doom here. It's actually been very easy to work together like this.

Honestly, it works really well, but like you said, laying out ground rules is a must. I'm sure tree and I could go into more detail if you have some specific questions. At the very worst, later today I can go through how we've divvied up tasks and all.

[akiko]

I will throw out there, as I have before, this model has really worked for them. This game is fast paced, creative, descriptive and highly enjoyable.

[treehouse]

Yeah, running RHD with Mercutio simply makes me wish I had done that with all of my games. It's a solid model when you team up with someone you trust and can communicate with. You'd think having two people trying to reach consensus on various issues would slow things down, but it usually doesn't. We divide up tasks and handle them with relative autonomy - we try to confer on most issues, but if one of us isn't available for input, the other knows they can move on anyway.

[zachol]

For tabletop games, I remember one time when we tried to do a game with 12 PCs and 2 DMs (it was one of those goofy "comics shop event" things).

The second DM was there to handle paperwork and questions during the massive games and keep everything organized.
They also sort of switched off to give each other breaks.


Then we decided that warhammer was a better way to handle big battles.

But, it was still fun.


I'll also say that tree's way seems to be a good thing for the most part, although they apparently collaborate on everything, which I sense could become problematic at times.


Well, I suppose by an itallcized everything I mean important things, but still, combat posts?
I thought you guys were just switching those off?

[The Hive Custodian]

Well, the main reason I posed the question is that nightinverse and I are planning a co-GMed one-shot some time in the future. (Not terribly soon, unfortunately, but eventually we'll get it together. Hopefully while we're still roommates.) A couple (for now) more questions:

What would you say is the most important thing to keep in mind when co-GMing a game? (Apart from normal GMing duties...)

Do you think more games should be run this way? Do you think this is feasible or likely?

Thanks for your input.

[Mercutio]

The most important thing? Like and respect your co-DM. That's my honest opinion. If you can't get along (that doesn't mean you can't disagree or suggest alternate paths) and feel like you can be open to critique, then it just won't work.

I do think more games should be run this way, although I suspect doing it IRL would be a lot different. As for a PBP, it allows both DMs to be involved for a near equal time period and it breaks up the duties to allow for more detailed thought in the two different areas.

Doing it IRL means setting boundaries on rules questions. Obviously you can't have one DM rule something one way and the other do it differently. That's why it works in PBP, because the pacing allows it to be discussed while the game goes on. In tabletop it's different because the speed of the game doesn't allow time for rules discussions.

Co-DMing in F2F games could still probably be split up like treehouse and I did it. Currently, he's the storyline and NPC DM and I'm the combat DM. In the natural break between chapters in RHD, we'll swap positions. The concern is that DMs should feel they have equal play time, so either more or longer combats are necessary, or the Co-DM in charge of combat should be able to NPC a specific character or two.

[BigRedRod]

My main problem with the idea of Co-DMing (Which I keep toying with) is that I make most of my notes in little books. The big Venn diagram of the universe shows no overlap between "People whom I allow to wander into my bedroom and read my notebooks" and "The ORP userbase".

So it would force me to start typing up (or scanning) my notes. Either that or just keeping things very light and breezy.

A module circumvents this problem nicely though, so that is always an option.

[LynMars]

llemaire and I are co-GMing a thread (http://nice.purrsia.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=003408) on another forum. What works for us is constant chattering over gmail chat, emails, and PMs. The ideas kinda evolve from there. Also being flexible whenever players come up with something off the wall, or real life changes how things have to work. BTW, if you do read that...feel free to skip Truth's first post. Seriously. :S

Usually, when GMing on my own, I keep a framwork of notes either in a paper notebook, or in a file on my computer if an online game (sometimes for table games too, so I can organize and edit easily). But when communicating with another GM and shooting ideas back and forth, I just keep the logs of our conversations, and any notes we shared or want to share in the next convo.

I do agree on the like and trust angles, too. Laurie and I work together rather well, and part of that is being friends and letting the convo wander to non-game things and just chattering about stuff in general. If you can do that and not get frustrated with each other, then a co-GMing relationship isn't too difficult.

[LuneMoonshadow]

I once attempted to co-DM with a friend of mine in F2F games. Worked out very well, though we did only play for a short time which could have skewed the actual results. Having another person to bounce ideas off of and to critque your work/improve upon it is a great tool. The only downside is that you both have to be like-minded in certain ways in order to not break down into an argument over what is "right" and "wrong."

That being said, I'd co-DM again in a heartbeat.

[elmer_jok]

I had something like this happen in a F2F game. My buddy wanted to take a shot at DM'ing and give me a break from the task, as I had DM'd their group into epic levels over the period of 3 years. He however didn't have the rules down pat yet, from a DM's perspective, so I offered to help referee. This worked beautifully up until the point that I had to stop playing. I was hoping they'd just go on without me, but he became very dependent on my rulings and has thus put the game off until I can return to the gaming table. It wasn't so much co-DM'ing as just having a DM and a referee. I had input on how the rules should be interpreted and other similar things, but he had the final say on it all and the story line was all his, I wasn't privy to any of that information. I played one of the tightest Dwarven Wizards I've ever heard of. I miss that campaign.