Multiple/Team/Duo GMs

[Gronin]

I was wondering if anyone has any experience in a GMing as part of a team or pair and if so how it worked out. Any specifics would be appreciated.

The reason I ask is that both my wife and I play in the same group and alternate as GMs and we were thinking that it might be an idea to try to take on the task together allowing us to share the responsibilities and work.

Thanks

 

[Umbran]

This is almost always the case in live-action games. Sometimes in these games, there's some distinction between "writers", who have written the material for the session, and "floor GMs", who are there more to resolve actions.

I have also been part of a GM team in some Paranoia games, where we had 10+ players per session.

In both these cases, we used multiple GMs due to the number of players involved. If many or all actions require a GM to resolve, then if you don't have enough GMs, you get a bottleneck, and play slows to a crawl.

Running games with a team adds overhead - the GM team has to communicate before and during the session, to keep continuity straight and make sure things are flowing well. If the overhead of inter-GM communication costs more than the bottleneck, it is not worth having a team of GMs. For a typical group of 4 or 5 at a tabletop, having multiple GMs is rarely going to be worth it.

 

[Gilladian]

I have done it a few times, in a few ways.
1) a game that rotated DMs between sessions; the other main DM and I created a "hub world" that had a story wherein a halfling rogue found an artifact that could create gates from world to world. He began exploring, but he didn't realize the gates he created were permanent. We adventurers were following along behind, trying to catch him, to get the device, stop him, and try to seal the gates. Each player in the group designed one of the worlds we arrived in, and DMed the sessions that occurred there. I ran several worlds, and my main Co-DM ran everything in the "hub". It worked okay; it was a shop game, and the specific purpose was to train new DMs.

2) my older brother and I created a shared world (or 2 or 3, but we only ever ran one of them) and then took turns DMing in it. We worked together to create the history of the world, and the basic outline of some mysteries and overarching challenges in the world (as I recall, it was a pocket plane with a large island trapped in it. Nobody on the island knew we were trapped, but there was now some evidence the world was shrinking, and the players had to find out why). We only ever ran 2-3 sessions, and then it fizzled out - an online campaign. We took turns DMing, and we also "helped" when it was our turn to play. But I think we tried to be a bit too railroady.

3) Another online game, of Dungeon World. We swapped DMing positions and playing between story arcs. Since DW is a very free-flowing game in which the PCs are very much encouraged to add their creative input to the world/game, it was a good choice. This was Play-by-post, and lasted well over a year before just recently sort of fading away.

In conclusion, I think Co-DMing can work very well. I liked it better online than in person. I really like that I got a break from DMing and got to play now and again. But knowing I was co-dm enabled me to feel empowered, and to exercise some of my Dming skills even as a player (I took lots of notes, and used facts about the world from their sessions in my game sessions as much as I could). It takes patience, cooperation and good communication skills to make it work. Note: in only the first situation did we ever really completely "co-dm" and that was in the first couple of sessions; it's not usually needed unless you have a very large group. It is much harder than swapping out and can be self-defeating.

 

[UselessTriviaMan]

I was half of a very successful co-GM with one of my best friends for a one-shot convention game last year. The initial concept was mine, but I didn't yet know the system (Savage Worlds) well enough to run it solo and he did the crunchy parts. We bounced ideas off each other and riffed our way into a really fun adventure. We communicated well before and during the game; I did most of the storytelling, and he ran most of the combats.

 

[Jhaelen]

Our current Dark Sun 4e game is run by a team of DMs and it's worked very well for everyone involved.
For the DMs the work load is shared, they inspire each other and imrove upon each others designs, and their DM styles actually complement each other (story vs. sandbox).
For the players this means we get to play more often, adventures are more varied, and the overarching campaign is full of cool ideas and twists.

For the finale of the heroic tier we played in two teams with each DM guiding one team through a set of encounters in parallel, culminating in a grand joined set-piece battle: One team prevented Tithian from becoming a sorcerer king while another team foiled plans to bring back Kalak during an arena tournament held in remembrance of Rikus' death (which our group had caused by releasing a kind of guardian demon when we accidentally dug into Kalak's ziggurat from Undertyr...).

Having two DMs is also nice whenever one or several players choose to undertake a side-mission, because they can be taken aside (or into an adjacent room) by the Co-DM until they're ready to rejoin the rest of the group.

About the only disadvantage I've noticed is a short period of adjustment required between adventures when DMs switch roles (the 'inactive' DM actually joins the player with his own PC). There is often some confusion whom to address, especially when dealing with the aftermath of the previous adventure.