Co-DMs

[punkorange]

I was wondering the benefits of having a co-DM during actual play. I know it would be cool to have some help sometimes designing adventures and keeping track of things during play, but have had much success with co-DMs or have you ever tried it?

 

[Crothian]

in a large group, I can se the benifit that way you can have people go in two directions and DM both at the same time. I've had people ask to be my co-Dm but I never have had one. Never saw the point.

 

[Wycen]

I was at a con many many years ago where the adventure had a co-DM and it rocked. But it was years before I tried the idea.

We tried it for 3E when the DM picked up Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. I was co-DM, but it was more like a was playing a PC who was an NPC, in other words it was my character while he ran and he'd do something else when I ran. Didn't work out.

Now we are going to try it for our Eberron game. The DM's wife has been displeased with her role in the group/party and has decided to ditch her character in favor of assisting her husband by running the bad guys during combat. I fear this really isn't going to resolve her displeasure, but that's really another story.

 

[Jdvn1]

In my experience, a co-GM is useful for bouncing ideas of one another and having another source of ideas, as well as dividing up responsibilities.

In the last game I co-GM'd, the other person came up with ideas and I came up with ways to pull them off (I know books, creatures, spells, abilities, etc much better than she does), and we'd comment on each other's GMing style so we keep getting better.

 

[IronWolf]

I guess I don't really see the point of it unless you are running a really large group. I try to avoid really large groups (i.e. nothing over 6 players). As for bouncing ideas off of people I have plenty of people I can do that with without needing a co-DM.

Now that's not to say co-DMs aren't for everyone, they just aren't for me.

 

[Frostmarrow]

We do this pretty frequently and it always seems to work out better than a solo DM. Even if we're just four or five players. To us the extra DM means more attention and oportunities to develop your character or quite simply fifteen extra minutes of role-playing in a session. We have equal DM's as opposed to DM and first mate.

 

[DragonLancer]

I've never seen the need in regards to my games, and I always think that "two many cooks spoilt the broth".

 

[S.Bense]

Dual DM's

I posted this same exact question around 2-3 weeks ago. Here's a link to the post & opinions.


http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=146563

 

[babomb]

Speaking from personal experience, make sure you clearly delineate the responsibilities of the two DMs. Nothing brings a session to a halt quite like an argument between the two DMs.

Decide on a head DM. He has final say on anything. The main DM can give the sous-DM (to borrow a cooking term) minor corrections or directions at the table, but if either has a major concern, take it in private. The sous-DM should never contradict the head DM.

Again, note what the sous-DM is responsible for. Keeping track of initiative order? Running some /all NPCs? Which? Controlling some/all enemy combatants? Which? Running part of the party when they split up? Running the whole game if the main DM can't make it?

The DMs should arrive early to discuss the adventure plans. The sous-DM should have time to review any notes or maps in case the party splits up and he has to run part. He should also have time to review any NPCs he will be running, whether roleplaying or in combat. (I was usually given these at the last minute or when the head DM got mad and stormed out.)

If the sous-DM is to run the session when the DM is absent, he should get any plans from the head DM as soon as possible. He should have a generic adventure prepped just in case. The main DM should also be able to trust him not to do anything dumb like give out loads of treasure. Or you may decide it's best to have him run a seperate one-shot.

In the two instances where my group has had co-DMs, the sous-DM ended up running the campaign and the main DM made a PC. But that doesn't mean it can't work for you. If you follow the guidelines above and spell everything out upfront, it might work just fine.

 

[the Jester]

I've had two experiences with co-dms, and both involved crossovers between our respective campaigns.

In the first one, one of my old friends took over my campaign for a handful of games as the party went into his world and participated in a battle against his ultimate mortal villain. It wasn't exactly co-dming because, when I 'passed the hat', he took over the game until we were done on his plane/campaign world. Then he passed the hat back. It was really cool, really fun and really smooth.

The other time was not too long ago. A friend of mine, who ran an epic dnd group of his own, and I schemed together to make our respective parties fight and then join forces to kill Asmodeus. It was very 'JLA vs. Avengers' in style; it's in my epic story hour, and involves all kinds of crazy manipulation and stuff. We took months to set it up, and arranged it so that each party thought the other group was terribly evil. None of the players knew what was going on in advance; it was a super-secret special double bag collector's item surprise kind of game, if you know what I mean.

When we ran the game, we ran it together, but it tended to be me doing more of the running and him doing more running npcs and stuff. It was a ton of fun, but I think I tended to hog the spotlight a little too much.

I would have problems with co-dms as a regular thing in an ongoing campaign; each dm would inevitably be missing some information that might prove vital to verisimilitude in the future.