Too many witches spoil the game.

[Elemen Opie]

I have the option of joining a game group of 4 that hasn't been together too awfully long. The group is made of people who are used to D.M.ing and it has been suggested that we draw straws to see who will D.M.

I am thinking of removing straw from the group as I believe D.M.ing 4 other D.M.s would be a nightmare.

Given your choice in this situation would you want to run your homebrew or play in what you were feed?

 

[BiggusGeekus]

It depends.

If I had a story I was dying to tell, then, yes. I'd want to DM.

But, people being who they are, I'd probably take a pass at this. I wouldn't want to be in a game where the other three guys were all trying to channel their campaigns through their characters ("Hey I know we're in a desert game, but I PLEASE take this water magic mastry feat that I developed for my own setting?")

 

[Carnifex]

Looked at the title of this thread and thought you were complaining about too many players with the Witch class in an A.U campaign

But to the question; depends on the DM's in question. If they're good DM's and good players, I'd love it, I really would, to have a group of solid roleplayers with a good understanding of the pressures of being a DM. But you'd need to be really sure you can do a campaign good enough for their expectations. I find as a DM that when it comes to other people's campaigns, I tend to look for ones with higher standards of play, since I easily find the loopholes and plot holes in those of less experienced DM's - annoying both me and the DM

 

[Buttercup]

I don't think I'd want to run a game for that group. I'm not sure I'd like to play in it either. If all the players could just focus on playing characters and not second guessing the poor sod that gets stuck DMing, then it could be great. But imagine a game where all the players are rules lawyers. Blech.

On the other hand, I don't think it's fair to assume that just because a person usually DMs, they will make a lousy player. So I suppose the best answer is BG's. It depends.

 

[Moe Ronalds]

Well, it sounds like you don't know the people involved. So I'd have to say that in your position I'd ask NOT to GM.

Of course, given how everyone feels about this, perhaps the draw is more to see who gets stuck, not who gets the privlege.

 

[LostSoul]

I'd try to play with them, and if I couldn't take it, then I'd ask to DM. If that didn't work, I'd leave the group.

 

[astralpwka]

I would definately DM or play in such a group, reason being:

1. If I'm DMing, I don't have to spend a lot of time helping out the other players understand their character sheets and abilities (especially spellcasters using spells from every single WotC book out there).

2. If I'm playing, I can look forward to a game no matter what (since everyone wants to DM, I'd focus on character ideas I've always wanted to do).

Except for the group's wives and one player, the other three guys in the group are all DM's, so the above situation occurs occassionally. But we've never had a problem with DM's bowing out, as long as one is really focussed on running his game next.

 

[SkidAce]

I find it odd that people would be worried about playing with other DMs. I'm sure they want to play sometmes too.

SkidAce

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Have a lot of DMs in my group. It's nice. We all have different styles and switch out for each other all the time so we never get burned and get to try everything that catches our eye.

The only drawback is that the feel of the party changes a lot when you loose a DM who is a good player. That makes it a little difficult to plan adventures for your next turn at the helm. The tactical minded party you are playing with could turn entirely heroic when your at the helm and the current DM is playing Rambo in your adventure.

Still I wouldn't change my group except for some sort of tremendous compensation.

 

[Wormwood]

If I had my choice, my players would all have extensive DMing experience.