Two DMs leading a party of 7 to 8 people

[Kafana]

Ok, so the idea my friend and I came up with is to merge the two groups we are leading this summer and have marathon sessions about once a week where we'd spend the whole day at his cottage, playing DnD and barbequing.

The idea is to have 2 DMs leading a large group. The way I figured, we could split the group more often without people having to wait their turn - one DM would lead one group at one end of the table, while the other leads another. If you consider that on average 6 out of 7 players will be present, you can safely say that leading 3 people won't be nearly as big of a challenge as say 5 (the number I'm currently working with).

The second benefit would be that we could brainstorm, bounce ideas and practice characters. Basically, the idea is that both of us develop side quests on our own, based on their current location. Then, we get together, compare our notes and entwine our quests, if possible, and develop the main path that advances the "main quest". This should, in theory, make the world much more rich, as both of us are developing scenarios of our own, then combining them and, hopefully, achieving some synergy in the process.

The third benefit would be that we should, at least somewhat, be able to avoid the "DM talking to himself" bit. If the whole group is in a tavern and something interesting is about to happen, each DM can roleplay half of the significant NPCs. Not only that, but we could add insignificant NPCs for flavor (e.g. at an inn where the group is talking to the innkeeper (portrayed by one DM) the other DM portrays a drunk. With the freedom of the cottage (and the forest next to it) we should be able to achieve maximum roleplay freedom, which should produce a great experience.

The bad points I can see at this point are:
- Organization. It will take us a lot more time to produce the materials for the session (although it should be even more fun to do it).
- Different views of how a game should be run. While we're great friends I've learned a lot more about how the game is played. That being said, I will try to pass as much of my knowledge as possible onto him while we prepare each session, so hopefully that won't be too much of a problem.
- Large group. Despite each DM having on average 3 or 4 players to handle, there are still 10 people at the table, which won't be easy to manage.

Since we're very good friends I doubt we'll conflict much on the actual content of our story. Both of us will compromise. That being said, I think that all the bad points can be overcome, if not at first, after a few sessions when we get used to the idea.

My question is - has anyone played a game like this? Was it good? Did anybody run a game like this? Was it hard to manage? What do you think of the general idea?

[Man on Fire]

I heard once of group who did it. They had two groups, one played your standard races on the quest to save the world, the other played monstrous humanoids on the same quest, both sides belived the other one to to be evil and causing the problem, so there were multiple moments when gms had to pass the notes between each other to coordinate two parties actions and their consequence to the other side. But it sounded like fun.

Ho about you guys try it this way: one good party, one evil on the same quest, with lot of in-between rivarly and things liek this. You basically have now both a party and their antagonists.

[Kafana]

I heard once of group who did it. They had two groups, one played your standard races on the quest to save the world, the other played monstrous humanoids on the same quest, both sides belived the other one to to be evil and causing the problem, so there were multiple moments when gms had to pass the notes between each other to coordinate two parties actions and their consequence to the other side. But it sounded like fun.

Ho about you guys try it this way: one good party, one evil on the same quest, with lot of in-between rivarly and things liek this. You basically have now both a party and their antagonists.

The problem with that is that we defeat the purpose of merging groups. Basically, each DM could lead 3 out of 5 sessions with his half, then on the fourth and fifth session it would make sense to group together for some rivalries. Our idea is that we should make a main quest that doesn't revolve around alignment, but survival (We were thinking about using tha Tarrasque as the main antagonist).

[Malak'ai]

Have one of you as Primary DM. Even though you've said you and the other guy are good friends and will comprimise, there will be certain things you wont agree on, and wont want to budge on. This is where one of you is just going to have to pull rank and say "This is how it's gunna be".
It sounds like a jerk move, but it will stop any arguements in the long run.

[GreenETC]

I actually did this once with one of my friends, who decided he really didn't want to play that day, so we sat down and planned out an entire 3 part story arc to run the set of pre-made characters I had through. We only ever did the first part, but it was fun the whole way, because it easily allows the party to split, which everyone admittedly does anyway, and ideas can come out quickly. Just make sure you trust the other DM well and communicate with each other.

[Kafana]

I'm assuming the biggest problem (especially at the beginning) is coordinating everything so that if the parties split, both the DMs are trying to stay in sync as to avoid one party waiting to much on the other (but then again, delays might make one party go looking for the other, which could lead to different outcomes of encounters).

Still, if one group is in battle (which in game time lasts for a minute max, while in real time can last over an hour) the other can't just say that they walk to the other group and join the fight, since they could be minutes, or even hours away from the other party (during which time the fight will surely end).

I suppose the DM not leading the group in battle could use the time to fill them in on any questions they might have regarding the story (through roleplay) or the game itself (what does this skill do, exactly?; is there a low level spell that can help me with ____?;).

[Viachi]

If you're doing it just so you can split the party, I dont really think there's much need to be together in the first place. There's obviously some, but you're going to be playing seperate games anyway, so it doesnt seem to accomplish much.

The idea, however, of being two seperate parties on the same campaign from the get-go is kind of intersting, because you can choose to be partners or enemies and you introduce a level of depth to the game if you have a rival party, and you can do the seperate games thing as well (which may lead to more character development or conflict if one character doesnt like the alliance or something)

Ultimately its up to you, but I dont think I would ever do such a thing

[OzymandiasX]

I've played in a game that tried this (a large player group with 2 GMs) and it didn't turn out as well as we had hoped. We had 2 main problems:

1) The actions of the split PC groups will end up (at some point) not interacting in some way that would have made a difference to the other. This will happen unintentionally, but will often result in ret-conning or fudging what happened to one (or both groups). This will happen. It likely won't be game-breaking, but it will be at best an annoyance and at worst a huge frustration when it does.


2) As Kafana suggested, allowing for group splitting (even with 2 GMs) will make some of the players have to sit on their thumbs for possibly large periods of time. This can end up being multiple hours of downtime for one group of players due to the fact that in-play time can either be much, much faster than real time, or vice versa.

Example: Group A gets into a couple of small battles, which take a total of 90 minutes in real time but only covers 5 minutes of game time... While Group B walks around town, talks to an NPC, sells some loot and goes to the inn for the evening, taking 20 minutes of real time, but covering 3 hours of game time... Now you have the players of Group B who really need to sit around for over an hour waiting for Group A to catch up... and that is assuming Group A doesn't get into any more combats.


All in all, I've found that keeping party split-ups to a minimum is best.

[Kafana]

If you're doing it just so you can split the party, I dont really think there's much need to be together in the first place. There's obviously some, but you're going to be playing seperate games anyway, so it doesnt seem to accomplish much.

The idea, however, of being two seperate parties on the same campaign from the get-go is kind of intersting, because you can choose to be partners or enemies and you introduce a level of depth to the game if you have a rival party, and you can do the seperate games thing as well (which may lead to more character development or conflict if one character doesnt like the alliance or something)

Ultimately its up to you, but I dont think I would ever do such a thing

The idea is to encourage players to regularly switch their teams, not have two static teams. Let's say you have 2 groups and each one has 4 players:
Team1: A B C D
Team2: E F G H

Perhaps you've grown tired of your team because they always seem to be getting into trouble. Perhaps your character has taken a fancy of the character in the other team. The idea is, for the most part, to have an even team, but if it so happens that one team has 5 people and the other 2, so be it.

Perhaps 3 of the 8 characters are rogues and they want to pull off a heist. They take the fighter of the group as muscle in case something goes wrong and play out that little quest, while the four other members of the group look into the strange activity in the crypt, needing to adjust to the fact that they lost their main tank and their skill monkeys.
Another scenario would be a raid on a fort ruin. Perhaps the main strike force, consisting of the fighter, ranger, cleric and wizard has decided to attack the main gate, while the three rogues along with a beguiler try to sneak from the forest to the side, climb the walls and take care of the archers and open the gate.

Hopefully, this should provide a nice team building exercise, as well as make that aspect of the game far more dynamic (you're not only representing your character, but the whole team, and if they dislike some of your actions they'll send you over to the other side).

Note that the idea is centered around either one team (during RPG sequences which involved the whole group) where each DM will play half of the present NPCs, though splitting into two, or even four teams is an option. Say you have 4 couples? The waiting time is rather short, considering that you're either waiting for the other couple or playing.

[Mirakk]

I've run a group of 10 players before with the help of a second DM, so maybe I can help here.


Your biggest enemies when doing this are lack of immersion, talking out of turn, and DM organization. Creating challenging encounters is also a concern as well, but the big three will be a thorn in your side if you're not careful.


1. DM Organization- Assign one DM to be the primary DM who handles all rulings and descriptions of people/places/things. This is the "Storyteller" DM. This DM will be responsible for the majority of the planning of the overall flow of the campaign.

The other DM is responsible for Initiative Tracking, HP tracking, moving of miniatures, manipulating other props (distributing maps, use of dry erase boards etc). I'd call this the "Combat DM".

During non-combat periods when the Combat DM has fewer responsibilities, he can help answer questions that players may have about mechanical workings of feats/spells/ranges etc. Questions related to the story should be directed to the Storyteller DM.

2. Talking out of turn- This one is huge. With this many players, you'll have the DM explaining something important, while two people talk about what happened last week on Naruto, and a third guy checks out his cellphone. Next thing you know, another player can't hear what's going on with the story because of the background noise of distracted players, and the DM is repeating things. Phone guy pipes up "who's turn is it"? and you explain that there's a very serious conversation going on with the local constable, and player #6 thought we were still at the tavern. It sounds ridiculous, but it WILL happen.

There's a couple ways to handle this. First. Set guidelines. Phones are to be stowed at all times. No use of laptops for screwing around. Remind them it's disruptive to the game and disrespectful to other people's times and people should be cool with it. Second, remind people that OOC chat should be limited as much as possible, and don't be afraid to call people on it if needed.

Secondly, give people a way to signal with a flag or other prop that they'd like to interact in some way with the Storyteller DM. Using this, the Storyteller DM can then naturally engage players who wish to chime into the dialogue. Keep an eye on players who haven't spoken as much as others to ensure that you don't have 1-2 people doing all the dialogue.

which brings me to my last point...

Immersion Factor- Keeping the immersion factor for a group this large can many times be difficult. As a Storyteller DM it's important to ensure that your naturally talkative players don't steal the whole show. There's going to be quiet folks. These people are usually new, uncomfortable with roleplaying, or just content to let others direct the story. You need to engage them. Call them out a little bit. Have that tavern wench take an interest in one of the quieter members, for example. It's easy to implement this if you have your mind set to it.

If you've followed my other suggestions for limiting outside distractions, you've already done yourself a huge favor in making the game more immersive. Don't be afraid to really use that flavor text to describe things.


With an aside for Encounter planning, balancing these can be a little bit of a pain. If 3-4 player parties can wreck havoc in a couple turns, a 10 person party is even worse. Scale your encounters up drastically, and pull your punches a little at first. Lower the encounter level slowly, but pull your punches less and less as you find your balance. With a group this size, you'll find yourself getting more creative with how you delay the inevitable curbstomp. Using things like difficult terrain, gale force winds, having a building on fire and filled with smoke, pouring rain, darkness, and cramped quarters, you can limit the tactical effectiveness of a group in other ways that make encounters more memorable and immersive, while also making them stretch out a bit longer as well.

Resist the urge to have a small number of foes in encounters. It only makes it easier to focus fire. Have foes arrive in waves (Second wave is Invisible. Third wave arrives from the sky or as cavalry. Fourth wave crests the hill with bows drawn etc), from different directions, and use complex tactics in greater numbers. Keep in mind that the group may not face the entire number of enemies in a given situation.


I hope this helps! Enjoy the experience. It's really awesome having a large group of interested players, and the experience will really help you grow as a DM :smallsmile:

[Kafana]

The main idea is for both DMs to get in on the story, as we both like that aspect of the game very much, while one DM (me) will have a slightly bigger influence on things since we decided to use my world. Both of us will forge quests and when the parties split it'll pretty much be a regular session.

When they don't split, however, the idea is for one DM to describe one thing, while the other does another. Perhaps one of them is telling them how they are entering a dark crypt, he is leading them and while they explore they make a spot check here, a search check there, etc. Then, the other DM jumps in, to describe a beast of horror that's coming out of the shadows, standing up from the table and mimicking the dreaded creature. Perhaps the other DM quickly finds the appropriate sound file on his tablet to reproduce the creature's roar.

This is what we hope to accomplish, though it will be hard and time consuming.