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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7168810" data-attributes="member: 996">When I was running for a 12-player table in a 2-hr time slot, I got a co-DM, sometimes un-planned, just 'hey, run the monsters for me,' sometimes by design, and we'd even split the table and run in parallel if it seemed warranted.  (A similar tactic at encounters was to split a table if it got too many players to run officially one of the players would just step up, read that one chapter of the module and run it, then return to playing when there were enough DMs available.)  I've also had or been a co-DM at convention games.The closest I've come to using that technique since 5e was a 4e/5e hybrid session, a treasure-hunting scenario that crossed universes...  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  It was fun, but...[quo9te]That's actually kindof unfortunate.  I find that the game runs more smoothly and enjoyably for everybody(including the DM) when the players are ultra dedicated and knowledgeable about the game.</blockquote>...for the most part, I don't see the 'everyone knows the rules super well and collaborates to help with some DM responsibilities' or the closely-related 'co-DM' techniques as a great idea in 5e.  5e depends on DM judgement at every turn, and taking the curtain off that judgement by discussing it with a co-DM in front of everyone or building a consensus undermines - trust isn't quite the right word - a sort of mystique or confidence that's of benefit when so much of what's happening all rests on the DM.  The more the DM can create an illusion that there's a rule and/or roll and/or pre-written scenario factoring into resolution, the easier it is for players to accept & participate in the story he's telling.  'Seeing the wires' blows it.  In 3.x dedicated & knowledgeable was almost required, and could certainly work, as long as the players are pretty nearly exactly as dedicated & knowledgeable, or those that are higher on the system mastery scale exercise restraint and or tackle the challenge of building to & playing disfavored concepts that heavy optimization & skilled play merely brings up to the par or the rest of the group.In 5e, so much of the resolution and balance of the system rests on DM rulings that, while it's certainly possible to have a campaign built around dedicated players of high-but-comparable system mastery (Celtavian's campaigns sound exactly like that from what he's recounted), it limits the DM's latitude in delivering the best possible experiences (and we get complaints the game is 'too easy' for instance). And class balanced was already eff'd on purpose, as 'imbalance over levels equal balance.'  So, if a party did rest as much as possible at low level, and, consequently, the magic-user used his 1 spell in more encounters and shone more brightly, it was really just bringing him up from virtually worthless to merely under-performing.  Likwise, through the 'sweet spot's, approximate balance/greater playability, shorter days might just mean harder combats and casters clearly being more important.  Once out of the sweet spot, casters were going to dominate, regardless. Which meant more resting rather than less, and those very early levels with only 1-3 spells make more sense in retrospect...  It's been a good week for me, confirmation bias-wise.  First someone else finally remembers the 'caller' concept, now someone else finally remembers old-school 1e pacing the way I always have.[/QUOTE]

Verification