Mark Causey
Explorer
It's also a popular thing to do in LARPs.
Have any of you DM's tried this?
- Thread starter BlueBlackRed
- Start date
JimAde said:
Oops, forgot one little underscore in there.
http://www.emeraldpress.net/living_nights.htm
The Living Nights project is one in which each nation is controlled by an Overlord, who is responsible for designing the civilization and adventures for each nation. Each Overlord is the sole "director" on that nation's events and government, acting as the DM for any campaign. In turn, there will likely be other individuals charged with leading certain provinces, villages, and what-have-you. Players for a Living Nights campaign can be rewarded for their actions by the Overlord through land titles or status awards, a new system that we are working on to grant ranks through the social order.
Varianor Abroad
Explorer
Yes, in some respects this is very similar to a Living Campaign. The major issues with those that I've seen are record-keeping.
I've also been a DM in a shared world campaign, which is pretty close to what you're talking about with your initial size. Since I think you're asking what the challenges/problems/differences are, I can speak to that. I was one of 5-7 DMs responsible for a jointly developed game world. Each of us took a turn (or several) running adventures set in the game. Unlike what you're talking about where different groups existed in different areas, the same PCs went from DM to DM.
But each DM wound up staking out their "creative turf" as it happened. Which was fine. People took a respectful attitude to different aspects of the world when someone else put it together.
Where there were issues were personality differences. One DM was not liked by some of the others. So when he wrote up materials, they would frequently get nixed by another set of DMs (who happened to be husband and wife). Any time he proposed changes, if the other two didn't like them they got dropped. However, if they wanted something to happen, it frequently did. There also were the occasional frictions on the DM list that cropped up over misunderstandings. So I would say that making sure that everyone can work together maturely and without friction is key.
The overall results however were excellent. Many ideas developed by the synergy of having lots of people working on the same basic concepts were darned neat. It was also nice to be able to take an NPC, plot or situation created by someone else and expand upon it, or bring it back when the PCs thought it over, but with a twist. The campaign itself and the world are still ongoing in fact (although I no longer participate due to the distance I live away from the rest).
The one other issue that I can foresee happening with a scenario like you propose - multiple games set in areas - I saw in a brief experiment like this in college, where two DMs ran two groups in the same world. One group got ahead of the other in the timeline, so that caused extra work for the DMs to keep everything straight. Just make sure that world shaking plots are kept out or to a minimum and that news travels slowly.
Good luck!
I've also been a DM in a shared world campaign, which is pretty close to what you're talking about with your initial size. Since I think you're asking what the challenges/problems/differences are, I can speak to that. I was one of 5-7 DMs responsible for a jointly developed game world. Each of us took a turn (or several) running adventures set in the game. Unlike what you're talking about where different groups existed in different areas, the same PCs went from DM to DM.
But each DM wound up staking out their "creative turf" as it happened. Which was fine. People took a respectful attitude to different aspects of the world when someone else put it together.
Where there were issues were personality differences. One DM was not liked by some of the others. So when he wrote up materials, they would frequently get nixed by another set of DMs (who happened to be husband and wife). Any time he proposed changes, if the other two didn't like them they got dropped. However, if they wanted something to happen, it frequently did. There also were the occasional frictions on the DM list that cropped up over misunderstandings. So I would say that making sure that everyone can work together maturely and without friction is key.
The overall results however were excellent. Many ideas developed by the synergy of having lots of people working on the same basic concepts were darned neat. It was also nice to be able to take an NPC, plot or situation created by someone else and expand upon it, or bring it back when the PCs thought it over, but with a twist. The campaign itself and the world are still ongoing in fact (although I no longer participate due to the distance I live away from the rest).
The one other issue that I can foresee happening with a scenario like you propose - multiple games set in areas - I saw in a brief experiment like this in college, where two DMs ran two groups in the same world. One group got ahead of the other in the timeline, so that caused extra work for the DMs to keep everything straight. Just make sure that world shaking plots are kept out or to a minimum and that news travels slowly.
Good luck!
TheAuldGrump
First Post
Played in one back in 1978 or so, tried running one with another DM for Ravenloft (during the '90s), but I ran the first scenario, then he decided he would rather just play... Grrr...
The Auld Grump, who almost never get to play... just run.
The Auld Grump, who almost never get to play... just run.
Creamsteak
Explorer
orsal said:
LEW is different from the con-living worlds like Living Greyhawk in that the setting is pretty much character driven. Characters can develop into jobs that are usually "taken" by NPCs (such as merchants or craftsmen). My current character is going to, hopefully, eventually become the "world's greatest tracker." City councilors should eventually be able to compete with each other for political power and everything. The goal is to have a setting and a game that's running constantly, through dozens of groups and dozens of different adventures and DMs. If a DM craps out on you, you can move into a new adventure (or even split up with your current group and find a new one for whatever reasons).
I think it's very cool, but it's a bit lengthy in process. Play by post is generally fairly slow, and in addition we've decided (a long time ago) to allow players to create in game content. So at any given time we've got a group of people developing feats and prestige classes related to their characters aspirations.
Keeper of Secrets
First Post
It certainly sounds like a neat idea, if not a little tricky to pull off. It seems like it would require lots of coordination between the GMs.
Rothnoran
First Post
2 spins on this
I can address this from 2 perspectives. I have GMed two different groups, with different objectives and goals, who adventured at the same time in the same general area. One group was "good" the other "not good". This was very fulfilling because the actions of each group provided background and plot hooks for the other group.
More to your point though I was involved in a game where several GMS provided world development, although only I and another fellow wound up running games in the world. We did not have different groups of players though, instead, we would each develop story lines separately (and often together) which we would then take turns running. While one of us ran a particular story line the other would play a character or an NPC(s). This was I think the ultimate way to run/play a game in that you always have someone to bounce ideas off of and you always have someone in the party who is also on the inside and able to help guide the story along without the GM appearing to be pushing the party. I recommend this type of collaborative GMing.
I can address this from 2 perspectives. I have GMed two different groups, with different objectives and goals, who adventured at the same time in the same general area. One group was "good" the other "not good". This was very fulfilling because the actions of each group provided background and plot hooks for the other group.
More to your point though I was involved in a game where several GMS provided world development, although only I and another fellow wound up running games in the world. We did not have different groups of players though, instead, we would each develop story lines separately (and often together) which we would then take turns running. While one of us ran a particular story line the other would play a character or an NPC(s). This was I think the ultimate way to run/play a game in that you always have someone to bounce ideas off of and you always have someone in the party who is also on the inside and able to help guide the story along without the GM appearing to be pushing the party. I recommend this type of collaborative GMing.
BlueBlackRed
Explorer
Varianor Abroad said:
First off, I doubt I'd get the chance to do anything like this. But my mind wanders while I'm bored.
As for the record keeping and timeline, there would have to be one primary coordinator GM & all of the DM's would have to be careful about their timeline control. Not easy, but better than chaos.
Emiricol said:
I'm sure there are, but 2 things are preventing me from doing this.
1) I'm lazy - that's why asked about it on here.
2) Online players would have a much easier opportunity to coordinate with one another. That just reeks of the potential to wreak havoc in the game world. P&P players usually play less online.
But like I said, I doubt I'd ever get into something like this. It's just one of those ideas I'll work on for awhile, then lose interest in.
But I knew it was not a brand new idea (I never have those), I'm just curious about how it's been done and such.
DragonLancer
Hero
Not for me. I'm a bit too much of a control type to want to share a campaign with another DM.
Similar Threads
