PDA

View Full Version : Switching DMs mid campaign?



Zocelot
2008-09-26, 08:18 PM
I've played 3.5e for a while, but when I switched to 4e I got some of my very good friends to form a group. I'm the DM, but we planned that when I was done with the campaign, another player would take over, and when he was done, another etc. However, one player recently suggested that every 5 sessions, we should switch to the next campaign. To my surprise, the other members agreed with him. What I don't like is that if I have to wait 20 weeks, nobody will rembember anything. Rather then building suspense as one player put it, the campaign will lose all sense of continuity.

My question to you is this: have any of you ever switched DMs mid campaign? If so how did it work out? Also, as I am against the idea, any arguments against it would be useful (I've already used the obvious analogy of comparing it to a movie that ends halfway through, and you have to wait until the sequel).

Edit: For clarification, we are not switching DMs but continuing the campaign. What is suggested is that we switch DMs and campagins.

Crow
2008-09-26, 08:30 PM
I haven't really liked it, for the loss of continuity. I would suggest playing 5-session mini-campaigns.

ocato
2008-09-26, 08:31 PM
It sounds to me like your players are more interested in short arcs and one-shot "side quest" style set-ups instead of longterm campaigns.

Nohwl
2008-09-26, 08:47 PM
i suppose if you were all continuing the same plot, it would work out. like you set up the basic plot in the fist couple weeks or whatever. lets say you have the villian made (we encounter him or something), have given the first quest, and established the general plot. now its my turn to dm. i create the stuff for the quest and then run it. the quest is completed and the second quest is set up as i finish my turn dming and then bob takes over the group. and it just continues like that.

if you mean every 5 sessions you get new characters then that sounds like a horrible idea. if your group goes at anywhere near the pace my group goes at, youll get no use out of them.

Zocelot
2008-09-26, 08:50 PM
if you mean every 5 sessions you get new characters then that sounds like a horrible idea. if your group goes at anywhere near the pace my group goes at, youll get no use out of them.


That's what I meant.

RTGoodman
2008-09-26, 09:06 PM
if you mean every 5 sessions you get new characters then that sounds like a horrible idea. if your group goes at anywhere near the pace my group goes at, youll get no use out of them.

That's EXACTLY how my regular group plays (or, I guess, played, back when we could get together). As I mentioned in another thread, the longest game we ran only lasted about 6 months and that was mostly because we only got to play once or twice a month on average. That playstyle is part of the reason I've never had a character advance more than 3 levels, and the highest-level character I've ever played (besides a level 5 Crusader I played for about 3 session in college) was a level 3 or 4 Bard that had start at level 2, I think.

Basically, it's a terrible way to play unless your only goal is to try as many things as possible.

Nohwl
2008-09-26, 09:08 PM
well i suppose you will be able to play every character you want to a lot sooner.

the reason i wouldnt want to do that is because more work is involved. you would have to write up a background and everything almost once a month. i dont mind if the characer i have is work intensive like wizards or druids, but i hate creative writing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

theres also the fact that you know its going to end soon so it seems like theres no point in continuing in the second to last session. i had a dm tell me that he was finishing his game soon; the last few sessions just dragged on.

Calinero
2008-09-26, 09:27 PM
I hope you weren't planning on having any plot twists. If everyone DM's, there will be no surprises.

Nohwl
2008-09-26, 09:45 PM
calinero, the current dm would be in charge of everything like that. everyone else doesnt have any input unless its their turn to dm. like you set up a quest where we have to go to a swamp to fight a dragon. then is my turn to dm and i can either continue with that or have the dragon be freindly and have the group find out that the old man who wanted the dragon killed was doing it for some evil reason. the current dm would only build a piece of the entire story before passing it off to the next person.

Vortling
2008-09-26, 10:18 PM
I've played 3.5e for a while, but when I switched to 4e I got some of my very good friends to form a group. I'm the DM, but we planned that when I was done with the campaign, another player would take over, and when he was done, another etc. However, one player recently suggested that every 5 sessions, we should switch to the next campaign. To my surprise, the other members agreed with him. What I don't like is that if I have to wait 20 weeks, nobody will rembember anything. Rather then building suspense as one player put it, the campaign will lose all sense of continuity.

My question to you is this: have any of you ever switched DMs mid campaign? If so how did it work out? Also, as I am against the idea, any arguments against it would be useful (I've already used the obvious analogy of comparing it to a movie that ends halfway through, and you have to wait until the sequel).

I would suggest you offer to put your campaign on hold until everyone else finishes as long as they agree yours will be the only one running. I would also suggest looking into another day to play.

Is this DMs who want to run their own stories or players who want to try out the new stuff of 4e?

If it's the latter I suggest running a ton of one off encounters and let the players switch characters each encounter. This is fairly easy to do. Pick a DM, DM picks a level for the players to start, players build their characters and go. You can burn a month or two this way and hopefully get all their new system "I want to try that!" out.

If it's the former see if you can narrow it down to two campaigns that switch off every other week. More than that and no one remembers everything.

LibraryOgre
2008-09-27, 10:36 AM
We actually did this in our 3.5 game. We started off with one DM, who continued through about level 5. Then another DM picked up the story until level 10ish, and I completed the game.