Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 3287620" data-attributes="member: 22424">No. My group has a primary DM (me), and one other guy who has DM'ed extensively in the past but doesn't currently have the time. The rest may have DM'ed a little in the past, but either don't, won't or can't.Again, no. Of the five 'non-DMs' of the group, one has run a (Vampire) game I played in. I suspect one of the others may have run some games in the past. Two others I believe have never run a game, and the last is a complete newcomer to the game.Not formally, but I won't play under the guy who ran Vampire again. That game was awful.No. DM'ing isn't for everyone, and DM'ing well isn't easy. If a player doesn't want to put in the effort, or doesn't have the confidence to think he'd do a good job... or even if he just prefers to play, then that's not an issue.It would be an issue if no-one in the group wanted to DM. But, since I (usually) prefer to DM that doesn't apply here.Probably. If someone else in the group wants to run a game, they should probably be given the chance. Especially in the typical case, where a campaign starts, runs for a while, then resets and you do something else. Those reset points are an ideal time for a switch.Obviously, if a DM has been running the same campaign for 20 years, there is somewhat more reason for resistance to a switch.I don't think so. I'm generally a poor player - I tend towards rules lawyering, but more to the point I find myself inwardly cringeing at all the calls that the DM invariably makes that I like to think I know are bad ideas.I rather hope not! If it does, then I have done a woefully inadequate amount of play.</blockquote>

Verification