rotating DMs same group of characters...would it work?

[TheAuldGrump]

A multi GM campaign can borrow from televisionshows - have a story an rules 'bible' agreed to between the GMs.

The story bible has any things that either DM does or does not not want to have the other DM touch upon. (If there is going to be a Doppleganger replacement storyline by one DM he may or may not want the other GM to stick his finger in the pie wih more Doppleganger plots.)

Any magic items that might or might not be introduced to the group. (So if GM1 wants to have some means of flight available to the party then he can let GM2 know so that GM 2 can add it as a treasure during his run, while GM2 does not want any dimension door or teleportation type magic items available until after a certain cycle is finished.)

If both GM's agree that there should be a campaign climax then this is where it goes, so both GMs can have events leading up to the climax in their adventures.

If they are sneaky sorts then cluse for GM 1's adventures can be found in GM 2's adventures and vice versa.

While it can get complex a two GM approach can be a lot of fun - I did this with an Ars Magica (3rd ed.) game for several years.

The Auld Grump

 

[Nightfall]

Wouldn't do it. Differing styles of DMing tend to result in bad stuff happening.

 

[pogre]

Wouldn't do it. Differing styles of DMing tend to result in bad stuff happening.

I think that could make it interesting. I would emphasize the episodic nature of the campaign as others have suggested. The characters need an overall impetus to adventure - like the A-team to avoid stepping on each other's toes. I would not mind trying it some day...

OK - I lied - I really don't enjoy playing that much

 

[Nightfall]

See I kind of figured you might say that Pogrie. I know for me, the change up in styles don't always mesh well enough to make for enjoyable campaigns.

I speak from experience.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Been doing it for 15 years, on and off.

I won't say that problems haven't cropped up, but they haven't been of the campaign-derailing kind.

 

[Nightfall]

Danny,

Probably because you have a way more cohesive group of people than I've been involved in.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Wouldn't do it. Differing styles of DMing tend to result in bad stuff happening.

Then add a style guide to the bibles!

The Auld Grump

 

[Nightfall]

Maybe but it's not just the DM's style it's also the PCs that make it hard to do. Trust me, I speak from VOLUMES of experience.

 

[JediSoth]

I think it could work if all the DMs involved shared a common "vision" for the campaign world and ran similar styles of games. If the DMs have totally different philosophies about how the game should be played, it wouldn't work. For example, in my group, we have one player that when he DMs, he does not allow multiclassing. Period. No one else has a problem with it. Sharing a campaign with him would be difficult at best.

JediSoth

 

[JoeBlank]

Much of my answer has been covered by others, so I will be brief. When 3.0 came out, my group set up a rotating DM campaign that is, technically, still ongoing. We have not played in the setting for a few months because of other issues, and because I wanted to run World's Largest Dungeon and could not fit it into the campaign.

We have a Primary DM. The way we set things up, our campaign is based in a city-state that has been occupied by and orc army for a generation. Just before play begins, the orcs have left town, suddenly and without explanation. The King is dead, and the Prince has taken all the best and bravest to track down the orcs. Much of the land around the city has been unexplored for years.

The Primary DM controls the city, and the NPCs that originate there. The rest of us (4 others) got a geographic region to control. The PCs are up-and-comers trying to help the city stabalize and re-establish itself.

We do not use a set number of sessions between DMs. Instead, we estimate how long an adveture will take, and give the on-deck DM some notice. We have a long-standing rule agains DMPCs, so the DM's character must find an excuse to go elsewhere when he is running the show. We have not problem with unbalanced character levels, so we don't do anything to give the DM's character XP during this time.

The only problem we have encountered is it becomes more diffucult to run a divided world once the PCs start hitting higher levels. When 3d level guys must force march for days to get to a location, it is easy for DM2 to control every element of the adventure without mession up DM1's ongoing plots. But when the PCs can teleport, and have met higher level NPCs, it makes no sense for them not to say "Gulgoth needs a restoration spell, why don't we rush over and see Father Talisker (DM1's NPC) before we head back down into the dungeon (being run by DM2)?" Also, it becomes more diffucult to come up with plots that are big enough to warrant the involvement of the PCs, but that do not affect the "world" as a whole.

This might be easier in a bigger setting. Our home brew is still one small continent, so it is getting a little cramped. When we return to the game, the Primary DM will be running things for a while. If I am to DM that campaign again, I have laid the groundwork to take the PCs to the Oathbound campaign setting for my adventures, but they will be able to return to the base campaign setting afterwards.

Did I say I would be brief?