Dungeon master - splitting the role in half

[rottenvenetic]

I have very little actual DnD experience, but that doesn't prevent me from coming up with ideas. After all, I have int 16 when I'm not trying :smallcool: (dex and cha are less than that combined though :smallfrown: )

Anyway, digression aside, would it be a good idea to split the DM's role between 2 people?

One of them would handle the setting, rules interpretations and general plot (= referee), while the other would determine tactics and builds for the adventuring party's enemies (essentially, playing them, part of the DM's job atm).

With random encounters, the referee could determine what comes up, and the enemies-DM would be told about them in advance, having time to figure out how to customize them, if any options are available, and what they will actually do when the party comes their way.

Depending on how confusing they want it all to be for the adventuring party, one, the other or both could handle NPCs, or they could alternate.

[teslas]

A lot of tables/groups split up the DM role like this.

I was in a game where I handled generation of all the encounters after the main story/NPC DM told me what he wanted. He played them once combat actually started. It saved him a lot of time, and I was much, much better at understanding game mechanics and balance so it worked out well. I was also the resident rules lawyer/official at the table, taking the burden off of him.

The down side is that since I was a player in the game, the encounters rarely surprised me, but the rest of the group loved it and the DM was fantastic at story-telling and world-crafting.

[vrigar]

To what purpose?
Offloading?
Specialization?
The benefit could hardly be worth the potential for friction.

[Andorax]

I actually recommend this approach when your group becomes large enough that it's hard for one DM to manage them all and give them their needed time.

Don't be TOO caught up in your defined roles. The Rules DM still needs to play the part of the mysterious contact that pulls one or two players aside and talk to them in the shadows.

It works best if the two DMs have lots of time they can spend together collaborating, coming up with the forthcoming plot and storyline and bouncing ideas back and forth. That's really the key, lots of communication.

[Sudain]

You can split it in half. It does work. Both sides just need to have direct and open communication, before, after, and during the game. There will be times where something plot-related comes up mid-combat, and the combat guy will wing it. The plot guy will just have to run with it. And visa versa.

[Kasbark]

As others have mentioned it can work just fine.
Don't get too hung up on who does what (its more fun for both GM's if you split control of the mobs in combat up, and take turn playing the NPC's in my experience)

[ThiagoMartell]

That second role is sometimes called "Adversary" (or, at least, that's what we published years ago). I've seen people trying it a few times, but I never seemed to stick. Being the Adversary seems really boring, IMHO.

[jackattack]

If one of the co-DMs is a good-natured rules lawyer, or just such an old hand that he knows all of the rules, then it can work. I've known games where one of the players was a de facto co-DM, and it works fine.

But agree beforehand who will make official rolls and rulings, then defer to each other as appropriate at the table. Even when you disagree.