Forums of the Megaverse®

I'd like to know if anyone ever tried that. I always thought it might be fun to GM in real-time online but am always worried that I couldn't reliably stay at the table, as I often need to take breaks to care for animals or answer phone/door, which would frustrate players.

If you had 2 GMs though, one could fill in while the other did that stuff, so there's always a GM to interact with for players.

It also seems like a good way to cut down on the workload, and for experienced GMs to guide a game sort of mentoring inexperienced ones who can do basic stuff like run NPCs or resolve minor combat while the head GM dealt with the over-arching story, gave info to the assistant GM, etc.

I've seen some of this done. In certain games where everyone has a dark side/spirit companion or whatever, the person to the left plays the character's spirit. Everyone plays a spirit/demon/whatever, to make life worse for that other player.

The other way, which I've only seen once, is what was called an Adversary. The Adversary plays either antagonistic or friendly NPCs of major importance. While the Adversary should try to adhere to what the GM is leading on about, the Adversary has extra freedom to do what they want (ie: go somewhat off the railroad)

Adversaries give the GM some breathing room, and helps share the dice rolling. The problem is, the Adversary is not always needed, which is why the part about playing non-hostiles is in there. Like say...an occasional friendly knight to the group, who has just shown up to lend aid to a cause.

The Dark Elf, Hendrik and I once discussed the possibility of putting together a three-GM game for a Palladium Open House session, but we never followed it up. Our plan was to GM three separate games with three groups of players, all leading up to a mega-game bringing all three groups together, with Hendrik taking on main GMing responsibility, and the Dark Elf and I taking on the role of the two major bad guys (who would have been introduced in our initial games), similar to Zerombr's "adversary" idea above, and providing whatever other support was necessary.

Each of the three initial games would have involved a different Nightbane Faction, coming together for the final part.

Soldier of Od wrote:The Dark Elf, Hendrik and I once discussed the possibility of putting together a three-GM game for a Palladium Open House session, but we never followed it up. Our plan was to GM three separate games with three groups of players, all leading up to a mega-game bringing all three groups together, with Hendrik taking on main GMing responsibility, and the Dark Elf and I taking on the role of the two major bad guys (who would have been introduced in our initial games), similar to Zerombr's "adversary" idea above, and providing whatever other support was necessary.

Each of the three initial games would have involved a different Nightbane Faction, coming together for the final part.

Dang, that actually sounds like it would have been really awesome. Its too bad that it didn't come to fruition.

I've never ran a game with two GMs simultaneously at the same table, but I have ran a joint world together with a friend before. We both sat down and we rough sketched a world and its history, and then we took turns running games in the world. It worked out pretty well, and I actually started a wiki-dot site to keep track of the game and all the information. I think it still exists out there on the internet somewhere . . .

Captain_Nibbz wrote:

Soldier of Od wrote:The Dark Elf, Hendrik and I once discussed the possibility of putting together a three-GM game for a Palladium Open House session, but we never followed it up. Our plan was to GM three separate games with three groups of players, all leading up to a mega-game bringing all three groups together, with Hendrik taking on main GMing responsibility, and the Dark Elf and I taking on the role of the two major bad guys (who would have been introduced in our initial games), similar to Zerombr's "adversary" idea above, and providing whatever other support was necessary.

Each of the three initial games would have involved a different Nightbane Faction, coming together for the final part.

Dang, that actually sounds like it would have been really awesome. Its too bad that it didn't come to fruition.

Maybe in 2021!

I did this for almost 2 years (2016-2018) w/ my BFF who I'd introduced to RIFTS back in 1994/1995.

He doesn't llike running combat. He's competent, but doesn't enjoy it.
I cannot think/react fast enough when doing non-combat stuff, i.e. in-town aspects of an adventure, or intrigue storylines. He's an excellent storyteller.

It worked well. Depending what was going on in-game, we could cover for each other. But it also allowed one of us to keep things moving while the other answered rules/equipment questions as several of our players were new to PB &/or RIFTS.

Axelmania wrote:I'd like to know if anyone ever tried that. I always thought it might be fun to GM in real-time online but am always worried that I couldn't reliably stay at the table, as I often need to take breaks to care for animals or answer phone/door, which would frustrate players.

If you had 2 GMs though, one could fill in while the other did that stuff, so there's always a GM to interact with for players.

It also seems like a good way to cut down on the workload, and for experienced GMs to guide a game sort of mentoring inexperienced ones who can do basic stuff like run NPCs or resolve minor combat while the head GM dealt with the over-arching story, gave info to the assistant GM, etc.

Yes, I've DM'd with someone else before and I liked the experience. Things moved really quickly and our ability to make up for the others flaws really stopped the game from getting bogged down. Never did it for RIFTS, only DnD.

That being said, I was part of a discord group that fell apart which had multiple DMs. The Primary DM was Inferno, with 2 or 3 secondary DMs who did canon games, and additional DMs who could run unofficial games. It was a pretty sweet RIFTS group, and the who adventure league thing was really popular, but there was TOO much good will and not enough organization. Players, and their petty bickering, killed it; but, up until then, it was a pretty good ride 10/10 would ride again.

If you are going to GM with multiple people, then you better have a shared vision or else one of you better step in line behind the other.

I'm a bit late to the discussion, but here are my thoughts/experiences.

Many, many, many moons ago, in the first real gaming group I played with, the DM had his younger brother as a secondary DM, who also had a character. Most times the DMs brother would just play his character, but would help out when combat occurred, or if the DM had to step out for any reason. I should point out that this was back in the day when AD&D 1st Ed was current, and the group could have anywhere up to 14 players at once. It certainly helped out having a secondary DM with such a large group and a large combat sequence.

I ran a much loved Ravenloft campaign (word spread and I would often have to turn people away from my door as I already had a group of 8 players!), where I had a secondary DM. He would help out with combat if needed, would sometimes run a subgroup if the group was split, but mostly played. He also ran a few sessions, and even introduced a villain who would reoccur occasionally.

It can certainly work, but both DMs need to be on the same page, and both be familiar with the general campaign arc. And at the end of the day, the secondary DM has to default to the main DM. When the secondary DM ran games within my Ravenloft campaign, for example, I can remember stepping it and correcting something once or twice. Once I explained why, he agreed, and we continued playing.

8D