PDA

View Full Version : Have you participated in rotating GMs?



TyGuy
2022-08-02, 01:01 PM
I'm looking for any and all words of wisdom on the subject.
Did it work out?
What issues might it bring up?

I'm specifically interested in trying something like this.

Here's how Run Club works:

1) Every month (or two weeks, or whatever works) someone takes a turn and runs a game. One-shot, short game. No campaign. No big picture. Just a single game.

2) Everybody who plays will GM. Everybody. This is the core principle of Run Club. You cannot play if you will not GM. That's the pact.

3) When everyone has run a game, the round is finished and you can start over again.

That's it. Simple on the surface, but in that simplicity a number of complex issues are addressed.

I've been wanting to play spelljammer for some time and with its re-emergence, I can't help but feel like it's the perfect setting for round-robin GMing and episodic adventures.

Satinavian
2022-08-02, 01:12 PM
Rotating GMs have been the standars in my 2.5 decades of RGPs over various groups. Generally that works fine.

Rule 1) That would be difficult. You generally don't want to strictly regulate the number of sessions a turn takes if you don't really need to. There are always longer and shorter adventures, there are always GMs miscalculating how long it will take and what the players do will and should effect the duration as well. Guideline is better than rule here.

Rule 2 ) Is fine. Not all our rotating-GM groups had it but many did and it was generally for the better.

Rule 3 ) A little flexibility might be called for. There is always real-life stuff getting in the way. As long as rule 2 is kept and not only in name, it would be enough.

Easy e
2022-08-02, 03:20 PM
I think that sounds great.

We need more people with experience running games. I firmly believe many of the "issues" that come up on this board are because too many people are players and not enough are also GM.

Edit: Yes I have run rotating GMs before, but instead of one-shots it is mostly a short story arc with set characters of between 2-12 sessions, a finale, and then we pitch new games and a new GM takes over with all new characters. No real issues.

Rynjin
2022-08-02, 04:52 PM
Depends on what you mean by "rotating GMs". A club like that where everyone takes a turn on some kind of specific schedule? No.

But most people in my usual gaming group have taken turns running a game at some point. There are two of us who do it more consistently, with games that last longer (I typically run on Saturdays, and him Sundays, so the games can be concurrent), but I appreciate the effort of everyone else who have tried to run a game even if it didn't last.

Currently the Sunday GM is trading off weekly with the third most consistent GMing member (through no fault of his own; his work means he can't always be in town to run or even play) of our group.

icefractal
2022-08-02, 06:45 PM
We do that, roughly. There are always multiple people running, and everyone has run, but it's not a strict rota - some people run more often than others. Seems to work well.

Wintermoot
2022-08-02, 07:02 PM
I was in a long running weekly game with six or seven others where we ran one campaign with rotating GMs. Three of us put together the "bible" of the campaign world and each person DMed one arc in a cycle. But there were only four of us who GMed. A couple people had no desire or ability to DM and thus, didn't.

It lasted from level 3-20 (pathfinder 1e) and I think it was a rousing success. The key, for me at least, was to not plan ahead of the arc I was running. I ran the first arc based on the "bible" and setting up how the group worked and introduced some long running plot points, but I didn't cement in my head how they would turn out. Then the next person built on it and the person after.

So with 17 levels and 4 people, I GMed levels 3, 7, 11, 15 and 19, so I GMed the first and last game and GMed 5 total sessions. GM two did levels 4, 8, 12, and 16. GM three did levels 5, 9, 13 and 17 and the last guy did levels 6, 10, 14 and 18. So they each got four sessions to by five, but that was intended from the get go.

I enjoyed it as a story-telling limitation because I had to build on others stories. Kind of like if you've ever did that thing where you write one paragraph of a story, then pass it around through a group with everyone writing the next paragraph.

I think it worked for us, but it probably wouldn't work for everyone.

King of Nowhere
2022-08-02, 07:17 PM
never tried, but i can't imagine it working well. not everyone has the creativity, system mastery and time to be a good gm.
i ssuppose it could work if you run a module, but we wouldn't do that

Alcore
2022-08-02, 08:21 PM
We tried...


never tried, but i can't imagine it working well. not everyone has the creativity, system mastery and time to be a good gm.
i ssuppose it could work if you run a module, but we wouldn't do thatwe found we were willing to suffer through a poorly thought out adventure a person wanted to run; as opposed to someone finding GMing was aweful and took that negative energy with them into the game.


Each GM takes something into the game with them. Even in an episodic campaign it is much different game going from Warhammer 40k to Star Trek to Star Wars and back. Sure, it was the same universe but things got dark sometimes...

clash
2022-08-02, 11:04 PM
We play rotating gms in my regular group but not one shots. Basically each person will take a turn at running a campaign when they get the fancy and everyone is encouraged to gm at least one at some point. It works great. Everyone gets to play and everyone gets to gm.

animorte
2022-08-03, 05:19 AM
Yes, in fact. I’ll just quote the current/most recent experience I detailed in a previous post.:


That is such a fun way to run games actually.

We started trading off a while ago, three of us (out of the 4-8 total depending on who showed up) will swap out various sessions depending on whether or not the last one accomplished the task at hand.

We even added a player who built his PC in like 15 minutes. My brother was supposed to DM that night but is less experienced and just passed it on to me so we could basically run this guy’s back story (as he had no memory). I just looked around and was like, “oh ok sure I got this. Give me like 10 minutes.” I threw open the Monster Manual, wrote down 10+ random names that came to mind (for NPC purposes), jotted down a basic idea directly relevant to his chosen background/class selection, then ready!

Very rarely are they unplanned and completely improvised as that. Most of it happens near the same town, but with varying general settings. When we have an idea of where to take “little vacations” from the main story (sometimes they still tie in), we have no problem trading off.

Based on this, my brother’s Life Cleric is specifically locked out of the Death Realm and can only participate in adventures outside of it, the ones he isn’t running. My PC is a GenieLock that sometimes will just disappear into his vessel for a while working on a certain project or taken off on a brief meeting/mission with his Patron. My wife plays a Lore Bard that periodically goes back to teach, present a soliloquy, or spend time with his beloved at the Blackstone Manor.

NRSASD
2022-08-03, 05:52 AM
We are doing that right now. Some of our players don’t want to DM, so that’s fine, but most of us do. We had a “session -1” where all the DMs got together and collectively brainstormed the world we wanted to play in. Establishing the rough tone and themes were much more important than actual plots. We also established the setting rules and reiterated the “everything the DM says is canon” policy. Then, we each took a number and got in the queue. We run short adventures, 1-3 sessions of 3 hours each.

We didn’t mandate everyone has to DM because several of our players are painfully introverted and freeze up under social pressure (which is hilarious because they’re professional surgeons who regularly handle way more stressful situations than the rest of us).

Some thoughts:
Make sure all the DMs are on the same page about the game to avoid tonal whiplash.
Make sure the DMs know not to plot beyond their current adventure to avoid dangling threads and disappointment.

KorvinStarmast
2022-08-03, 07:23 AM
I firmly believe many of the "issues" that come up on this board are because too many people are players and not enough are also GM. I find myself with the same perspective.

We are doing that right now. Some of our players don’t want to DM, so that’s fine, but most of us do. We had a “session -1” where all the DMs got together and collectively brainstormed the world we wanted to play in. Establishing the rough tone and themes were much more important than actual plots. We also established the setting rules and reiterated the “everything the DM says is canon” policy. Then, we each took a number and got in the queue. We run short adventures, 1-3 sessions of 3 hours each. We tried to start that in about 2015/2016. Two DM's with me being the third as I got more roll20 systems mastery under my belt. We only play on line, my brother is master world builder, all three DMs consult on world building stuff with final veto or approval being my brother.

Make sure all the DMs are on the same page about the game to avoid tonal whiplash. we failed at that right out of the box. We were supposed to be "an adventurer's guild" (six to seven players) and each mini adventure (4-7 sessions was expected) would be run by one DM and then the end would be "and so you return to the guild and wait for the next hook/cloaked stranger/message from the duke/what have you." Instead, our level 1 PCs on an escort mission got teleported to somewhere else on the planet and ended up lost in a jungle until the group eventually stopped playing. A lot of that was RL scheduling/changes in RL stuff for the DM, but the core part of it was that we could not reconnect with "next DM up" because none of the characters were anywhere near the adventurer's guild where we had started.
As it turned out. So that whole party is still in limbo somewhere, at about third level, in an un named jungle somewhere on the planet.
Some months later, with the desire to keep playing being agreed, we started all over from scratch. That party is still going, though. (My 10th level celestial warlock is a part of that, but the campaign is on pause while my brother deals with that horrible RL thing about doing his job and traveling and such).

Make sure the DMs know not to plot beyond their current adventure to avoid dangling threads and disappointment. Yeah, that's kind of important, per our example.

Mastikator
2022-08-03, 09:47 AM
Yes, and it worked OK. Not *every* player GM'd and some definitely GM'd more than others. But it was adequate.

Some issues that came up in retrospect is that different people have different preferred styles, and whoever was the GM was the decider of the style.
Another issue was what you did with your PC while you GM'd, in my opinion having them turn into a DMPC is a bad- possibly worst possible option.

Some *really* good points: being in the GM seat at least once puts playing into a very different perspective, I think players who have never GM'd are very negative and unfair to GMs and tend to hold them to ridiculously high standards (all the while giving a pass to any player who merely isn't actively disruptive, mhmm).

Another *really* good thing is that nobody has to be the "forever GM".

I also think it's fun when a new GM uses a NPC from a previous game that was run by another player, it lets you recontextualize the world and the people which is always a nice treat.

It also lets everyone experience and learn from each other how to GM decently, at least eventually.

Overall I think the experience is positive and it works best when running one shots or two shots, or otherwise very short adventures.

Catullus64
2022-08-03, 11:22 AM
It might be best for these games to be setting-light, or to use different settings. When my group of gaming friends did something similar (albeit with far less strict rotation), there were multiple conflicts that came up regarding setting lore, when one DM's material stepped on the toes of important lore that another had established for a shared setting. If you are going to do a consistent shared setting for these games, one of several things needs to happen:

1. Everyone agrees to be loosey-goosey with world information, history, metaphysics, tone, so forth, and not get so attached to their own contributions that it bothers them when others contradict them. Easily said, not so easily done.

2. The GMs (in this case, everybody) work carefully with one another to establish the setting and its internal rules.

3. Play in a published setting, and select a specific sourcebook or set of sourcebooks which are effectively gospel.

On a separate note, allowances should occasionally be made for mini-campaigns (2-4 sessions). Eventually, people will get tired of running games that are constrained to a single session.

Vahnavoi
2022-08-03, 11:39 AM
I don't particularly see a reason to restrict yourselves to one-shots? If A, B and C are taking turns, there shouldn't be much of an issue with A running A's campaign on A's turns, so on and so forth, given they have an idea for a campaign. It isn't all that hard to format a campaign so that each session is reasonably self-contained. It only becomes an issue if you have a very large amount of club members so that there are long periods between turns... and even that can be solved by keeping good notes. I would know, I'm a convention game master, sessions between games of my campaign can sometimes be measured in months.

Myself, I've only been a rotating game master on much shorter time scales - primarily open tables, where me and several other game masters are taking turns running the same setting or megadungeon for people who can come and go as they may. I'm more familiar with rotating casts of players, where each session is held for whoever shows up, with no assumptions that the same people will show up each time to play the same characters.

Talakeal
2022-08-03, 12:22 PM
Once, it was terrible.

Whomever was currently GMing ran their character as a DMPC, with all the usual baggage that brings.

DMs constantly got mad at the previous GM for being too generous with treasure and “Monty Haul” and then pissed off the players by finding ways to take away their loot.

And the original GM got mad at other people for fleshing out “his world” without his permission.

Disaster all around.

KorvinStarmast
2022-08-03, 12:35 PM
In our world of shared DMing, if I may follow up, what happened at first was that my brother picked up the slack, and after we got to about 3d or 4th level RL was impacting his ability to DM. I then took over, and my PC (life cleric) was still with the party and someone else had to play her when necessary. My brother usually did, but sometimes he could not participate at all. She was mostly built as a support character so it wasn't too stressful and as I had already loaded a nice mix of spells none of them cared enough to change them.

A level later, my brother could DM again, and I picked up with the Cleric and we proceeded.
A few sessions later I needed to DM again for a few weeks, so I picked it up again and my cleric got played by whomever could run two that session.

Finally, when my brother could play again, that group went on hold and we started a whole new party a few thousand miles away in the same world, with me running them as DM for a while, then me playing as a PC for a while in the old group.
We are still doing that.
Since my cleric had gotten herself pregnant I retired her and we found a rational way to insert my current Celestial warlock into the party during the spring fair at one of the major towns in the region where the PCs were adventuring.

The key to all of this is for the DM's to communicate and agree on a tone / theme. It makes for a much more harmonious table. Tonight the second group will complete their level up to 10 which means that both groups are now at the same level. And that means that I am going to bug my brother to start DMing again, unless we can convince the original DM to maybe pitch in ... but since he's been moved halfway across the country by his company, and is getting settled in, I doubt he'll be able to do that for a while.

thorr-kan
2022-08-03, 04:07 PM
I'm looking for any and all words of wisdom on the subject.
Did it work out?
What issues might it bring up?
For the 22 years I've been part of the Friday Night Gaming Group, we've run with rotating GMs. The Group has been doing so for longer than I've been a part of it. A few people have come and gone, but the Group lives on.

However, we don't follow your strict setup.


I'm specifically interested in trying something like this.

1) Every month (or two weeks, or whatever works) someone takes a turn and runs a game. One-shot, short game. No campaign. No big picture. Just a single game.
We've got six members; four guys, two girls. The guys DM, the girls don't. (This isn't sexism. One of the ladies has no interest in DMing. Until she fell in love with 5E and DMed the HELL out of Waterdeep Heist. We may revisit those characters. The other only plays because her husband does and it gives her a chance to hang with their friends. This isn't a problem; she's engaged as a player. It's just the social aspect is much more important to her than the gaming aspect. It works for us. Everybody behaving like grownups; what that world coming to, amiright?)

The Group often plays one-offs/short campaigns in a Call of Cthulhu meta-setting they've been using since the late 80s. We don't revisit characters, but the background is consistent. I don't run CoC.

Some of us run D&D 1E or 2E. Again, these are usually one-offs/short campaigns, though we have revisited a few we enjoy. I am running a 2E Al-Qadim campaign that we've take from 0th to about 9th level right now. It's been off and on for 22 years.

Each run takes as long as it takes. This can be a few months or most of a year. (We meet biweekly for about 3 hours.)


2) Everybody who plays will GM. Everybody. This is the core principle of Run Club. You cannot play if you will not GM. That's the pact.
Everybody who's interested GMs. But you, as a player, have to buy-in to some campaigns you might not really be interested in. That's the price for getting to run that one campaign you really want to.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. My 70s Detroit-excon-heist adventure was an unfocused bust. Another DMs deep, introspective examination of life and the meaning of undeath after life turned into a zany 80s sitcom that surprised everybody, including DM. C'est la vie.


3) When everyone has run a game, the round is finished and you can start over again.
We take volunteers, though we try hard not to have somebody DM back-to-back...to-back (Danger Committee reference). That way lies burnout. I was going to climb back in the AQ saddle for the first time in 10 years when my eye failed. Once I recover from surgery, I'm back on that wagon. Meanwhile, movies and board games.

Quertus
2022-08-03, 06:32 PM
Wow. So, first off, thank you for posting the rules to “run club”. Although I *have* been in a “rotating GM” game or two in my time, I’ve never even considered something so… “Lawful” as the three laws (un)safe run club.

As such, I’ll tailor my advice (at least in this first post) to giving my response thereunto.

1) one-shots only? Good in theory, bad in practice.

Well, that may be a bit strong, so let me backpedal a bit. Because it depends on what you value.

Some conceptual one-shots end up taking two or even three sessions. Sometimes, that’s because of the amount of content. Sometimes, that’s because the players get stuck. Sometimes, that’s because the players want to dive deeper into something than the GM expected. Sometimes, that’s because the players go an unexpected direction, or attempt to go multiple directions. And sometimes that’s because Real Life(TM) gets in the way.

Now, if you’re me, that means that you give the session the amount of time it takes, you give the players the amount of rope they ask for, and you let things play out naturally.

However, if you value teaching people pacing, and both building stories and taking actions to cookie cutter molds, then obviously mandating such timing will be valuable.

2) Everybody runs. Good in theory, questionable in practice.

So, once again, it depends on what you value.

Many players just aren’t cut out for GMing. Or, at the very least, their growth would be better served by then running just a single one-shot, rather than having them commit to continuing to do so.

But if you view players as “freeloaders”, then obviously you’d want to keep things “even” and “balanced”.

More to the point, are you trying to work with the people you have, make a game with your friends, or are you trying to find a specific type of people to associate with, or build the community (assuming the community is feeling a GM deficit), or build your group?

Another thing to take into consideration is, people who have GM experience often look at games differently than “pure” players do. If everyone’s eyes are opened, you cannot get an unbiased read on things… but neither do you need to worry (as much) about players cluelessly breaking the game out of ignorance.

So… how one sides on this one strongly depends on what one values… and what variables one thinks to consider in the first place.

3) everyone runs in order (ish)? Eh…

Let me be clear here: if it’s Roger’s turn to run a session, but his dog just died, his truck just broke down, his girlfriend just broke up with him, and they’re looking to make a country song about him, do you really want the rules saying it’s Roger’s turn to run the game?

“Yes” is a valid answer to that question (and not just because I’m batting for team Lawful Evil). Getting experience with delays might be part of the Intended training. Or you might have delayed anyway - if he’s not up to run, would he really be up to playing? (Again, both “yes” and “no” are potential valid answers to that question, too.)

——-

Still, though, at the risk of losing Lawful Evil cred, I’ll say that, IME, a different approach seems optimal for the types of groups I prefer.

So, I prefer a group of friends getting together to play a game, over a group of gamers, or a corporate gaming optimization sweatshop.

I value individuals with diverse talents pools, and utilizing everyone’s talents, over homogenized gaming product substitute, substitute.

I value the stories I get to tell, of the player who’d never played (let alone run) an RPG before being the one to encounter a Sphere of Annihilation when the PCs split the party (the only session where you could hear a pin drop as said player carefully scientifically evaluated the anomaly). I enjoy the amazing stories you can only get from an environment almost but not quite completely unlike run club.

However, despite my very biased descriptions, if you have values that differ from my own (especially if your area suffers from a dearth of GMs, but also if you value “homogenized experience” (and subsequent aggregate reductions in required communication or expectation mismatch), or are planning for the future & planning to introduce a system you’d really like to *play* rather than just *run* (something that’s been a nigh-unsolvable problem around these parts)), and really strongly favor linear games with no self-motivated players (ie, no “distracting side-quests”), then I can’t actually fault you for preferring “run club”.

Ok, now I’ll read the replies, and see just how off-base I was with my knee-jerk reaction to run club’s rules. :smallredface:

Bulhakov
2022-08-04, 09:02 AM
I've tried it, but without forcing anyone who didn't want to GM.
What it mainly achieves is selecting the best GM in the group.

Alcore
2022-08-04, 10:12 AM
I've tried it, but without forcing anyone who didn't want to GM.
What it mainly achieves is selecting the best GM in the group.

Or finding a replacement when burn out occurs (or he has a bad day). Or someone wants to give it a try.

Run Club can't work in real life if too many are of the "I don't want to" variety. Worse if they find they hate doing so. You'll quickly find yourself at an almost empty table.

Easy e
2022-08-04, 10:23 AM
I am assuming you only sign up for "Run Club" if you are somewhat into the idea of running games in the first place.

The Glyphstone
2022-08-04, 11:12 AM
My current group rotates the GM slot, but for full campaigns that last 2-3 years on average. So not really 'Run Club'.

Quertus
2022-08-04, 11:19 AM
Once, it was terrible.

Whomever wasn’t gming ran their character as a gmpc, with all the usual baggage that brings.

DMs constantly got mad at the previous GM for being too generous with treasure and “Monty Haul” and then pissed off the players by finding ways to take away their loot.

And the original GM got mad at other people for fleshing out “his world” without his permission.

Disaster all around.

So confused.

What does “as a gmpc, with all the usual baggage that brings” mean to you? And was that the one who was currently the GM, or those who were not currently GM, that did so?

And what… how did the original GM expect the other GMs to run games without fleshing out the world?

Miscalibrated expectations (including wealth) and undoing / invalidating other GM’s work? Those sound like they are issues that should be considered before embarking upon such an endeavor.

Talakeal
2022-08-04, 12:26 PM
What does “as a gmpc, with all the usual baggage that brings” mean to you? And was that the one who was currently the GM, or those who were not currently GM, that did so?

Sorry, typo, fixed. Whomever WAS currently GMing rand their character as a DMPC.

The big problems IMO are favoritism (real or imagined), metagaming (real of imagined), conflicts of interest, and divided attention.

Like, I remember one time I gave the party all air themed magic items, and my character got a ring that could cast either the jump or feather fall spell, but another player, who got a continuous ring of flight (an objectively better item in any circumstance) still started crap saying "Notice how only Talakeal's PC got an item with TWO powers? Wonder why that is..."

TyGuy
2022-08-04, 03:17 PM
For clarification, I found those run club rules and copy/paste them for simplicity. I see them as more guidelines or inspiration for myself.
I think I would like to try keeping the adventure length down to 1-4 sessions. Our one-shots usually take us 1.5 four hour sessions.
I'm struggling to articulate why, but I really like the idea of making sure everyone DMs before the next round. I don't think keeping to a strict rotation lineup is necessary. Life happens and shuffling would be expected. But there's a certain reciprocity if everyone has to take their turn. I also don't see any issue with people sticking to their comfort level. Maybe one person just does a session of 1 hr of real content fluffed with antics. And another asks if they can take an extended 7 session deep dive.
For my table I don't see too much issue with the "non-DMs" running something ridiculous or light. We've been playing together for over 2 years and there's no illusions of each other's style and involvement. Plus if we did run spelljammer, the setting is ripe for lighthearted shenanigans.

I think as contrived as it may be, each PC has to sit out for the session while the owner DMs. Perhaps creating such a plot device should be a topic for session 0.

Batcathat
2022-08-04, 03:48 PM
I don't really see the point of having everyone GM. Personally, I love both playing and GMing (and like to think I do pretty well in both) but the roles are pretty different and not everyone will be good at both or enjoy both. I guess I could see a use for a setup like this if no one wanted to GM, so GMing would just be a necessary evil the group shares.

Vahnavoi
2022-08-05, 03:07 AM
I am assuming you only sign up for "Run Club" if you are somewhat into the idea of running games in the first place.

People regularly sign up for things that turn out to be not what they're into. Sometimes the feeling of being pressured or obligated to do something is what makes it not what they're into, even if they initially were into it. On the flipside, people regularly refuse to sign up for things that they would be into, but something in the pitch makes it sound like too much trouble - whether a rule is phrased positively or negatively, for example, can make all the difference.

Misereor
2022-08-05, 04:09 AM
I'm looking for any and all words of wisdom on the subject.
Did it work out?
What issues might it bring up?

I'm specifically interested in trying something like this.

Works fine for us.
We are just finishing off Pathfinder's Rise of the Runelords adventure path, and we have had four different GM's.

Notes.
- First and foremost, you need players who don't seek advantage for OOC knowledge and other aspects of GM fiat.
- Allow a character pool. With constant rotation, not having a few "alts" can quickly become annoying.
- If someone only has time to GM for a session or two, do a sidetrek instead of switching GMs mid-adventure.

Easy e
2022-08-05, 10:43 AM
I don't really see the point of having everyone GM. Personally, I love both playing and GMing (and like to think I do pretty well in both) but the roles are pretty different and not everyone will be good at both or enjoy both. I guess I could see a use for a setup like this if no one wanted to GM, so GMing would just be a necessary evil the group shares.

When you are a GM, you get a very different perspective on role-playing games than when you are a player only. Many table issues and misunderstandings could be resolved if everyone at the table had this shared perspective and experience.

This process makes sure everyone has that perspective in a structured way.

Batcathat
2022-08-05, 10:50 AM
When you are a GM, you get a very different perspective on role-playing games than when you are a player only. Many table issues and misunderstandings could be resolved if everyone at the table had this shared perspective and experience.

This process makes sure everyone has that perspective in a structured way.

Sure, there's probably some truth to that, so I can see the benefit of having everyone try it. Still seems unnecessary for everyone to do it regularly though (unless everyone wants to, of course).

Quertus
2022-08-05, 10:53 AM
For clarification, I found those run club rules and copy/paste them for simplicity. I see them as more guidelines or inspiration for myself.
I think I would like to try keeping the adventure length down to 1-4 sessions. Our one-shots usually take us 1.5 four hour sessions.
I'm struggling to articulate why, but I really like the idea of making sure everyone DMs before the next round. I don't think keeping to a strict rotation lineup is necessary. Life happens and shuffling would be expected. But there's a certain reciprocity if everyone has to take their turn. I also don't see any issue with people sticking to their comfort level. Maybe one person just does a session of 1 hr of real content fluffed with antics. And another asks if they can take an extended 7 session deep dive.
For my table I don't see too much issue with the "non-DMs" running something ridiculous or light. We've been playing together for over 2 years and there's no illusions of each other's style and involvement. Plus if we did run spelljammer, the setting is ripe for lighthearted shenanigans.

I think as contrived as it may be, each PC has to sit out for the session while the owner DMs. Perhaps creating such a plot device should be a topic for session 0.

If you’ve got an existing group you’re interested in applying this to, then this conversation is one best to have with them. Still, going into that conversation forearmed with knowledge and ideas is a good plan. So what can we tell you, specific to your situation?

Yes, Spelljammer seems a very appropriate setting for trying out rotating GMing.

What if your group is like, “we need to go back to location X (that was run by GM Y)”, when it isn’t their turn to run? What if they do so as a suggested solution to player Z’s game? How much will the metagame influence the game?

Does your group have experience with… hmmm… “not cookie cutter” parties? If the GM’s PC is sitting out, and everyone is GM, you need two of everything to have one of everything in every party. This may be a good time to have everyone run multiple PCs.

I guess a “watch rotation” could explain why you rotate who stays with the ship vs who “beams down” to explore the planet?

Discuss where you all stand on the spectrum of “WBL is a physical property of the universe” to “we’re fine running the party after they looted the Justice Lords”.

Discuss where you all stand on the related spectrum of “your actions have meaning and lasting effects” to “episodic play with anticipation of returning to baseline”.

Discuss where you all stand on the related spectrum of “long-term negative effects” vs “She turned me into a newt! … I got better”.

Discuss where you all stand on the related spectra of rate of leveling, and CaW vs CaS.

That is, if I’ve planned a “sporting” adventure for level 3 PCs, but, before it’s my turn to run, they’ve reached level 8, and have a dozen Space Viking bodyguard henchmen, is that a problem?

Had you gone with a pure “run club” format, I might have suggested “everyone runs a session, gain a level”.

Quertus
2022-08-05, 11:14 AM
When you are a GM, you get a very different perspective on role-playing games than when you are a player only. Many table issues and misunderstandings could be resolved if everyone at the table had this shared perspective and experience.

This process makes sure everyone has that perspective in a structured way.

This is an interesting conversation in and of itself.

So, sure, if everyone has GM’d, everyone has GM’d. Kinda a tautology, that.

However, while Bruce Wayne responded to the gun-related death of his parents by becoming a vigilante crime fighter who dresses up as a bat and refuses to use guns, Bruce Payne might well have responded to the same stimulus by dressing up as a rat, and using guns to fight crime.

The point being, the same stimulus can teach different people different lessons.

So it’s not the case that “everyone running” will put everyone on the same page, to remedy such problems. It gives them experience with other points of view, and gives them the background to use to form a vocabulary about such things. But if two neutral players run games, and become dead set on their respective, opposed positions (like CaS vs CaW, or illusionism vs honest), then everyone having run games could actually cause problems rather than solve them.

More insidiously, the belief that “everyone has run a game, therefore we’re on the same page” could reduce the impetus to use preventative tools (like “session 0”), potentially resulting in more and worse problems than a naive group that understands their naivety.

On the flip side, if everyone is experienced, no one is naïve, and you cannot elicit the naive response from the group. If you care.

Anyway, if such “table issues and misunderstandings” are a concern, sure, getting everyone experience GMing in their own one-shots can be advantageous. But I would recommend tools like “session 0” and “developing a shared vocabulary” and “cultivating table culture” to be more valuable for this purpose.

Satinavian
2022-08-05, 12:26 PM
I don't really see the point of having everyone GM. Personally, I love both playing and GMing (and like to think I do pretty well in both) but the roles are pretty different and not everyone will be good at both or enjoy both. I guess I could see a use for a setup like this if no one wanted to GM, so GMing would just be a necessary evil the group shares.

The first benefit is that it keeps everyyone at the table on the same level, no hierarchies.

The second benefit is that it does provide both reason and a safe environment for new GMs to take their first steps.

The third reason it that it helps a lot against GM burnout because everyone gets regular, long breaks.

Batcathat
2022-08-05, 01:03 PM
The first benefit is that it keeps everyyone at the table on the same level, no hierarchies.

The second benefit is that it does provide both reason and a safe environment for new GMs to take their first steps.

The third reason it that it helps a lot against GM burnout because everyone gets regular, long breaks.

I can't say I've ever had a problem with a table being too hierarchical, but I suppose it might help someone with that issue (assuming it's specifically based on the GM having more power than the players).

As for the other reasons, I agree that it can be good to change GMs on occasion, whether it's to give the current GM a break or give someone new a chance to try it. I don't think either depends on everyone regularly taking a turn though.

Cheesegear
2022-08-05, 08:21 PM
Did it work out?
What issues might it bring up?

Sometimes I've been sick, or I've not been up for DMing that week 'cause burnout. I'll try and get someone to take my place for that week. They hate it.

My players at both tables either can't or wont DM, and when people who aren't me, DM, there appears to be a lot of complaints, and those DMs then refer back to me - even though I'm a player - on what I would do. "Can you do it like [Cheesegear] does it?" has been heard more than once.

I also have a direct quote; 'If you [me, Cheesegear] weren't our DM, we wouldn't play D&D.' from one of my tables.

Not everyone has the same creative output,
Not everyone has the same understanding of the rules,
Not everyone has the ability to multi-task and have the agile thinking that wrangling 4-6 players onto a task, requires.

Ultimately, the key is consistency, and when you have rotating DMs, the likelihood of your table not having consistency, goes up.

I am a Forever-DM. The only time I get to play a character is when they're a hostile. Which means I might only ever get one scene with them. :smallfrown:

Tawmis
2022-08-06, 11:36 PM
I've never done a rotating DM.

I homebrewed all of my world, and while I incorporate everything I can from my players (backstories, ideas they might have/like to see) - I am, still, admittedly a control freak.

So every Tuesday, I DM (every other week it's everyone, the following week is what we call "off week" where it's a different campaign and people are free to join and drop that one, because it's not the main one).

However, that said - one of my players, DM'ed after that, and ran Out of the Abyss, but that was on Thursday.

Another of my players, ran a smaller game, that was once a month (on some weekend day).

So not really rotating DMs - but my players DMing their own sessions with me in it as a player, on different days.

EDIT - To be clear, the Out of the Abyss, was just that. So not based in my campaign. And the monthly game, she had created her own homebrew world for her game. So none of the games take place in my homebrew campaign.

ShedShadow
2022-08-07, 03:53 AM
Yes, and no.

Yes, we did rotate GM's, but in several ways.

First: Whoever felt like doing a campaign, did a campaign. Lasted ~1 year each. Worked fine, no inconsistencies, but DM burnout did happen, luckily you could just not opt to run a campaign to recover.

Second: I ran a megadungeon (Egyptian themed pyramid). I did the intro few sessions and called dibs on the last two floors, but there were 15 floors in between. Players could claim one and run it as they saw fit as long as they contained it to that level. This set-up worked amazing. Fun was had, I had plenty of sessions to just play, while the story as a whole remained intact. I can highly recommend this setup.

Third: We decided to create a joint world, where each player had a region and could make up as they would (under very general guidelines, such as "has dwarves"). We then took turns running mini-campaigns (4-6 sessions) in that world with the same characters. This was ok, but inconsistency was greater. For example, we agreed to be low magic, but at level 4 they met a salamander who gave one of the characters what amounts to a lightsaber (we were playing medieval fantasy). She was still underpowered, but come on. We had also instituted 'DM says = law' so we couldn't retcon it. Disgruntled, but we moved on. After multiple mini campaigns this world was kind of sided out.

Fourth: We did a joint DM plan. Me and my buddy were the DM's together. We would take turns leading sessions, with minor roles in roleplaying or combat tactics for the other DM. Worked great, because you could lean on the other DM and riff off of each other. Created great roleplay, but the co-DM for each session did feel a little less useful. Also less stress on one single DM because you can roll with what the other prepped.

We're currently taking a break, but I'm getting back in the DM saddle soon.

Duff
2022-08-08, 11:30 PM
Rotating GMs have been the standars in my 2.5 decades of RGPs over various groups. Generally that works fine.

Rule 1) That would be difficult. You generally don't want to strictly regulate the number of sessions a turn takes if you don't really need to. There are always longer and shorter adventures, there are always GMs miscalculating how long it will take and what the players do will and should effect the duration as well. Guideline is better than rule here.

Rule 2 ) Is fine. Not all our rotating-GM groups had it but many did and it was generally for the better.

Rule 3 ) A little flexibility might be called for. There is always real-life stuff getting in the way. As long as rule 2 is kept and not only in name, it would be enough.

Agreed. Flexibility means the person who turn it is to GM next failing to get their "schedule" together (whether because of life, or because they just aren't that committed) doesn't mean the group folds.
It also means the person who's been struck by inspiration and has a great game ready to go is free to do it. Whereas, by the time their turn comes around their enthusiasm may have waned

Also everyone GMs can be good to have some give in it I say as the member of the group with the most hours of work per week and a sole parent in a group of bachelors.
Some people are also temperamentally unsuited to GMing, Too shy, not able to think on their feet quickly enough, In a group of experienced players, you might want to give the newbie a while to get up to speed before you push


Also, within a campaign, I've played rotating GMs quite successfully. D&D and MechWarrior games where there's an element of turn taking with who runs the next adventure. The things to watch for here are
You need a level of communication about where adventures start and end and what treasure the party gets along the way. If the party has no flight, don't give them flight without checking with the next GM that flight won't wreck their planned adventure.

If the party's marooned on a desert island and you have and adventure to get them off it, say so. Then let anyone who wants to run desert island hijinks the chance to do so before you run your thing


Also, I've always wanted to run a troupe style game like Ars Magica where some or all of the players have "areas" they run stories for. So maybe one player runs the relations with the nearby Baron, another runs the fairy court and a 3rd runs a rival covenant. Another GM might run "everything else" or everything else could be shared more evenly

Velaryon
2022-08-12, 12:25 PM
By rotating GMs, does it mean having everyone involved run a separate game, or a shared campaign in which all the players take a turn at DMing the game? I have done both.

My core gaming group is fortunate to have four people who've been bitten by the DM bug for many years (and one more recently). We don't strictly rotate, with each running games as their enthusiasm and level of availability allows. Sometimes that means multiple games trading weekends, sometimes that means one person runs for a while as the only one.

However, one time I did also have a game with two other friends where we traded DMing back and forth for the same game. Whoever's turn it was would prepare a sort of mini-adventure and let their character take a little bit of a back seat when it came to decision-making for the group that session. It was a fairly combat-heavy game with simple stories so it wasn't difficult to trade back and forth.

Quertus
2022-08-13, 04:05 PM
If the party has no flight, don't give them flight without checking with the next GM that flight won't wreck their planned adventure.

Alternately, if flight would wreck your planned adventure, up your skills to where you do not write adventures that are so easily wrecked? Rotating the GM is a really good training tool to write less fragile adventures, if you don’t child-proof things for the GM, IME.

Duff
2022-08-15, 10:17 PM
Alternately, if flight would wreck your planned adventure, up your skills to where you do not write adventures that are so easily wrecked? Rotating the GM is a really good training tool to write less fragile adventures, if you don’t child-proof things for the GM, IME.
Also this. But work with each other. If your friend isn't great at thinking on their feet, they need more notice. If they're a noob, they probably need this. If they're time poor and run published material, don't do anything too much outside normal level items

KorvinStarmast
2022-08-16, 07:22 PM
The first benefit is that it keeps everyyone at the table on the same level, no hierarchies. Sort of; people are still people and in any social group that develops a pecking order.

The second benefit is that it does provide both reason and a safe environment for new GMs to take their first steps. This. IME this is how you make new DMs.

The third reason it that it helps a lot against GM burnout because everyone gets regular, long breaks. Amen. If one is forever GM it can be trying.

RazorChain
2022-08-19, 02:49 PM
In one of my groups we had usually a main campaign and one shots. The main had the same GM but we would rotate one shots. One shots were mostly to give the main GM a break and we'd also run it if we were short on players for the main campaign. One shots is also great to test out new systems or just do something drastically different.

We had also a black ops campaign with rotating GMs. The campaign was mission based so each GM would run a mission.

Quertus
2022-08-19, 04:47 PM
In one of my groups we had usually a main campaign and one shots. The main had the same GM but we would rotate one shots. One shots were mostly to give the main GM a break and we'd also run it if we were short on players for the main campaign. One shots is also great to test out new systems or just do something drastically different.

Kudos for bringing that up - “not everyone” / “not enough people” can make it, but we still want to get together / play a game is a *great* opportunity for one-shots, *and* is also a great opportunity for “forever GM” to get to play by mandating that someone else needs to be GM for such one-shots.

On a completely unrelated note, while results may vary by personality type, my experience is, Chaotic “who has something that they’d like to run?” produces more inspiration, more games available in a multi-GM party than Lawful “Thou must be ready to run thine game on the next session”. Also, such Chaotic-minded scheduling is more forgiving of “oh, the PCs got Flight / 20 vials of oil / a clue? That completely invalidates my adventure trapped by a cliff / vs a troll / in the Realms”, giving the would-be GM time to retool their idea, or shelve it and craft another.

(Ok, the Realms aren’t actually invalidated by having a clue, regardless of how clueless many of their characters are portrayed as. By being a Playground Determinator, maybe, but what setting isn’t?)

King of Nowhere
2022-08-19, 06:10 PM
the problem with one-shot/short campaigns is that you can't build the same kind of emotional involvement with your character and the campaign world. that kind of deep connection is truly the most satisfying part of the game.
I am lucky to be in a group with 2 good dm, so we can run a long campaing each and stave off the worst of dm fatigue. we also have supporting players. so we never felt like the players were taking advantage of our dming to outsorce to us the hardest part, and we never had to force others to take a turn.
ultimately, my experience is that the group works better if the people who are good at being dm are dming; but that requires very good group dynamics, and can't be done in all groups

Satinavian
2022-08-20, 01:05 AM
the problem with one-shot/short campaigns is that you can't build the same kind of emotional involvement with your character and the campaign world. that kind of deep connection is truly the most satisfying part of the game. You can share both the world and the PCs between all the GMs and thus still get attached. That is actually how it is done most often.

animorte
2022-08-20, 01:16 AM
You can share both the world and the PCs between all the GMs and thus still get attached. That is actually how it is done most often.

Can confirm, this is how we do it most of the time.

Quertus
2022-08-20, 07:44 AM
the problem with one-shot/short campaigns is that you can't build the same kind of emotional involvement with your character and the campaign world.


You can share both the world and the PCs between all the GMs and thus still get attached. That is actually how it is done most often.

So… there are many possible answers here.

Yes, “continuity of cast and setting” is one possible answer (and feels very germane to this thread).

But one-shots also provide the freedom to *not* have that level of investment. It’s a great opportunity to find out whether you can play a character who is constantly cracking jokes, or (like Deadpool) constantly breaking the 4th wall, or a different gender, or just “not your normal class / build / role”. Or to learn firsthand why everyone hates Kender.

It’s also an opportunity to try new systems. Most groups aren’t clever and creative enough to make running the same PCs in D&D, WoD, CoC, Rifts, and Fate a thing, so getting caught up on one often excludes the other.

But, even if that long-term commitment is the ultimate goal? Why, just giving people the opportunity to run (and play in) these one-shots may build up the appropriate skills and hungers in people to make that happen.

Satinavian
2022-08-20, 01:34 PM
But, even if that long-term commitment is the ultimate goal? Why, just giving people the opportunity to run (and play in) these one-shots may build up the appropriate skills and hungers in people to make that happen.Or one could start a proper campain that allows such commitment in the first place. Why the detour ?

I know that you regularly champion a couple of one shots for the group to get to know each other. But honestly ? I would sit out such an arrangement and only join after those arre done.

Quertus
2022-08-21, 08:22 AM
Or one could start a proper campain that allows such commitment in the first place. Why the detour ?

I know that you regularly champion a couple of one shots for the group to get to know each other. But honestly ? I would sit out such an arrangement and only join after those arre done.

You realize you’ve given an answer to your own question, right? I’m not sure if you’re just playing devil’s advocate to give me the opportunity to expound on these details for the folks at home, or if you have a specific question you want answered, but I’ll do my best.

So, yes, obviously, this has the advantage of providing variety, of all the advantages of both one-shots and extended campaigns. Senility willing, maybe I’ll go into more detail on those advantages, perhaps inside a spoiler tag.

But, to answer your more pressing question with a question, why do people go on dates instead of jumping straight to the commitment of marriage? Why the detour?

Lastly (I’m practicing “brevity is the essence of clarity”, please rate the results :smallwink:), I feel you may be missing out, sitting out on the party’s formative moments of those one-shots. Would you really be ok with joining an established group with a new PC? I mean, yes, but would you really consider that optimal over being there from the beginning? Then, same question, but for a new system: would you really prefer all the other players to have experience with the system, and knowing how to build the character that they envision and enjoy playing, while you will be running a comparative jalopy, like a poorly built 3e Fighter (“Toughness is where it’s at! Why would anyone take any other feat! And I’m going Dex-based, and high Int to cover low skill points!”) falling behind the Druid’s animal companion, let alone the CoDzilla? Because, if so, that seems an odd goal, but you do you.

Clear enough why I consider one-shots so valuable?

Satinavian
2022-08-22, 02:50 AM
Lastly (I’m practicing “brevity is the essence of clarity”, please rate the results :smallwink:), I feel you may be missing out, sitting out on the party’s formative moments of those one-shots. Would you really be ok with joining an established group with a new PC? I mean, yes, but would you really consider that optimal over being there from the beginning? Then, same question, but for a new system: would you really prefer all the other players to have experience with the system, and knowing how to build the character that they envision and enjoy playing, while you will be running a comparative jalopy, like a poorly built 3e Fighter (“Toughness is where it’s at! Why would anyone take any other feat! And I’m going Dex-based, and high Int to cover low skill points!”) falling behind the Druid’s animal companion, let alone the CoDzilla? Because, if so, that seems an odd goal, but you do you.

I don't see how i am missing "the party's formative moments", if it's a new party every session and we only create the real party after the one-shots are over. That is even more true when settings and even systems change as well.

And yes, i would have no problems joining an existing group with a new character. And if that group was starting a new campaign, it would seem like an ideal time to do so.

As for build failures and paople becoming unhappy with their characters. Stuff like that happens. Rarely. If it does, there is little problem either switching the character or, if it is the build only, to give it an overhaul. I really don't think it is worth at all to waste weeks upon weeks of precious session time only to get people more familiar with the system before the actual campaign starts.
Usually you don't have that many newbies anyway.

I wouldn't even want to have such training sessions if i was the one new to the system, as long as i was already committed to the campaign.



A one-shot for trying out a system if the majority of a groups wants to try out a system is acceptable though. But looking back, even that is more often done as a one-off with people only interested in this particular system and not necessarily planning to play in this constellation again.

KorvinStarmast
2022-08-22, 08:53 AM
I don't see how I am missing "the party's formative moments", if it's a new party every session and we only create the real party after the one-shots are over. That is even more true when settings and even systems change as well. Amen. The small group dynamics that has the most weight is the small group of players, not characters. :smallsmile:

And yes, I would have no problems joining an existing group with a new character. And if that group was starting a new campaign, it would seem like an ideal time to do so.
Likewise. Have done it with some frequency.


... becoming unhappy with their characters. {snip} If it does, there is little problem either switching the character or, if it is the build only, to give it an overhaul. In my experience, this isn't that much trouble. One's Own Mileage May Vary

KineticDiplomat
2022-09-11, 04:22 PM
I've been running a rotating GM group for about four years now. There is no obligation to GM, but most people end up wanting to at some point. Really our only standing rule is "no D&D or clones".

We seem to settle into shorter campaigns...6-9 months real time with one exception...and at the end of each campaign two or three guys will set the table with a couple options they'd like to GM. There is completely non-codified process that selects one based on social consensus based on what seems interesting as a setting, GM fatigue/desire, cool systems, and so on.

Then that GM runs it. Rinse and repeat.

I have to say, it works. If I had to say why, here would be my answers:

- Everyone is a bit older and has been gaming for a bit. There's no inherent virtue to age, but it does mean that we made our tragically bad player/gm social contract mistakes in the past.

-Pretty much everyone WANTS to GM something. Specifically a non-d&d something. They have some ideas in their head for a cool story, a system they always wanted to try, a setting that they really want to explore. So GMing is a great way to make it happen, not an unfortunate drudgery to pay for playing.

-The systems tend towards the more mechanically simple. Besides reducing prep and memorization costs, it also helps avoid having to account for an excess of wildly specific and granular player actions with all the social Friction that can cause.

And it's been a blast. A heist in the Mistborn setting. Imperial Guardsmen in Only War. A low fantasy series of swashbuckling adventures. Cthulu in the early days of humanity in space. A kingdom and army level game about a rebellion to overthrow a daemon emperor. Open ended, or with pre-assigned characters, long contuity to a series of thematixky linked one shots, pretty much the gamut.

But I would really stress "you HAVE to run" isn't the point. The point is "you want to run." I've yet to see a campaign end without multiple players immediately volunteering to run a different game.

oxybe
2022-09-11, 11:08 PM
technically yes.

We have what most groups would call a "Regular" GM (noting that some of our group's been playing together for nearly two decades now) who tends to run modules/paths/whatever in a longer form (and even then it's not always the same system. he ran Pathfinder 1 for a long time, then some Adventures in Middle Earth and broke things up with the Alien RPG and a MorkBorg one-shot), but after he's run an adventure/module or two someone will inevitably offer to run something. we just finished a Starfinder module and we've started a game of the Witcher RPG, both games were run by different players.

Once the Witcher game is done, Regular GM said he had a few games he'd picked up he'd like to try running.

There's no schedule, just "We've wrapped up the adventure and if GM wants to take a break and play as a PC, anyone here have an elevator pitch for something to play in the meanwhile?" and then we vote on the next game.