Rotating DMs

[weenie]

Me and three friends are going to resume playing d&d after some time, and because none of us wants to be the DM all of the time a friend suggested, that we have a single campaign, made out of separate adventures, each DMed by someone else.

I must say I'm not completely ok with this. Since I tend to like playing RP heavy campaigns, where interaction between the PCs is very important, the constant missing of PCs could be really bothering.. But then again I don't see many alternative solutions to the problem and the others have mentioned, that they wouldn't like to be making up tons of PCs all the time.

So I turn to you, more experienced playgrounders. How should we solve this?

[Satyr]

Why not use the character of the current dm as a NPC who travels with the group and increase everyone's participation into the plot development so that the difference between the DM and the players is not so pronounced.

You could probbaly play as well with one character less than players and rotate the characters regularly so that everyone plays every character from time to time and the characters are collective ownership items.

[valadil]

We did a game like this and it was awesome. The only difference is that everyone wanted to GM so this was how we split it up. I'd love to be in a game like that again.

Each GM was responsible for removing his own character from his session. That meant that the characters were around for part of the session before being written off. It didn't hamper roleplay much at all. You could run them each as GMPCs, but I prefer having a dynamic party that doesn't always have the same group.

We had each GM run 2-4 sessions. When we rotated GMs we leveled. We kept the loot lite so that nobody would have to take back someone else's mistake.

At first all the games were episodic in that they were totally self contained and completed by the time we finished. Later on we left plot threads open for someone else to pick up. Once we started doing that was when the game got good.

Finally, we used a wiki for just about everything. Character sheets and backgrounds were there. The setting started blank and generic but as we added cities and NPCs they went on the wiki. This is also where we voted on what rules were and weren't allowed. I'm not sure why those poor bastards voted to let me play an Incantatrix, but that was their own fault.

[weenie]

I think that the current DM making his PC leave is the best solution so far. And in case it isn't possible to justify the PC suddenly disappearing, having a temporary DMPC sounds like a solid plan. It would probably be nice for the characters to have some obligations, that requires them to return home every once in a while, like having a family, being the priest of a church etc. Ok, I guess it'll work out fine. Thanks guys.

[Ashtar]

And when the other players get back, they have plot hooks up the wazoo given to them by one of their best friends who has just gotten hold of a juicy rumor / a treasure map / a vision or something. It allows wizards, clerics and other classes some downtime to do research and object crafting. Reunion with your friends and tall stories are perfect RP occasions, your characters will all gain a lot of immersion into the world.

The Ars magica roleplaying game had its whole concept of the game based on a rotating gamemaster. Their solution was to increase the number of characters available (wizards, servants and companions) to keep a fresh mix.

The Dark Sun setting also proposed character trees for the same purpose, where players had several characters which met up to interact on a regular basis, but each with his/her own life. Admittedly it was made also to counteract the high attrition rate of campaigns. Having two (or more) characters available to play allows you to have some leeway in arranging the party, otherwise when the cleric's player is GMing you could have a missing role.

[Lord Herman]

Won't the DMs get queasy if you keep rotating them?

Sorry, I keep thinking that whenever I see this thread's title.

[Meat Shield]

We sorta do this in my home game. I have eight people (including myself) in my group, and three of us DM regularly, as well as at least three of the others able to do it occasionally. We play in the Kingdoms of Kalamar campaign world of Tellene, and it is large enough so that we each have our own campaigns running concurrently throughout the world, but we take the changes that happen in one campaign and carry them over to the others.

For instance, one of the other DMs had a paladin NPC that lost contact with his god in one of his last sessions. No explanation, but most likely it was because the god in question was what is commonly called lawful stupid and lawful stupid characters really annoy this DM. He meant for it just to be that paladin.

I was up next session, and I knew to not let something go that is that juicy. I ruled that every worshipper of that god lost contact, across the world at the same time. I ran about six more sessions, and by the end of my turn, two more gods were gone, with still no clue.

The next DM built upon this further, by exploring what happens in the aftermath of two good and one neutral god disappearing. The original DM is getting ready to jump back in and we will start exploring the reasons now. Keep in mind that this was all done independently of each other - no collusion was made, so each player and soon-to-be-DM were surprised by each turn.

In short, I recommend have separate campaigns that build on each other. Its been great!

[Tyrrell]

I play ars magica lots and from my experience the rotating DM can work fine. (admittedly Ars Magica is played with a larger cast of characters than a standard D&D game, which may make things easier).

I definately suggest that each of the game masters choose a portion of the plot to run for themselves alone, for instance one person might run the stories surrounding the fae that live near the PC's another might run the stories dealing with the nobles and the church. Not to imply that htese are the only stories that a player wold run but to maked certain that other game masters don't screw up the plots that are running in those areas.

My "troupe style" Ars magica games have, without exception, always provided a much better roleplaying portion of the game experience than my D&D games. (But that could also be the product system, setting, or enthusiasm).

[Raum]

Me and three friends are going to resume playing d&d after some time, and because none of us wants to be the DM all of the time a friend suggested, that we have a single campaign, made out of separate adventures, each DMed by someone else.

I must say I'm not completely ok with this. Since I tend to like playing RP heavy campaigns, where interaction between the PCs is very important, the constant missing of PCs could be really bothering.. But then again I don't see many alternative solutions to the problem and the others have mentioned, that they wouldn't like to be making up tons of PCs all the time.

So I turn to you, more experienced playgrounders. How should we solve this?

A friend and I ran Shadowrun this way back in 1992. It works with a few caveats.

• Power creep is a real threat, all it takes is one GM giving out a powerful item for the others to need to compensate. Make sure all GMs agree on campaign power level and style.
• Missing PCs and RP isn't an real issue as long as you run the game as a series of missions initiated from the same base / location. Each GM runs a mission from beginning to end then tou just swap out players by building a new team for the next mission.
• It does limit travel and any long term story arcs outside of the base location.
• You may also need to give some amount of XP to all PCs, whether they're in that mission or not. Otherwise the GMs' PCs will gradually fall further and further behind.

[TheElfLord]

Me and three friends are going to resume playing d&d after some time, and because none of us wants to be the DM all of the time a friend suggested, that we have a single campaign, made out of separate adventures, each DMed by someone else.

I must say I'm not completely ok with this. Since I tend to like playing RP heavy campaigns, where interaction between the PCs is very important, the constant missing of PCs could be really bothering.. But then again I don't see many alternative solutions to the problem and the others have mentioned, that they wouldn't like to be making up tons of PCs all the time.

So I turn to you, more experienced playgrounders. How should we solve this?

I would suggest everyone running their own game. My group has always done this, and that keeps the burden of creating material constantly from falling on anyone's shoulders. To do this you wouldn't be making tons of PCs, just one for each game. If the people in your group can't come up with three PC concepts, how are they going to create the needed npcs for a game?

My idea might not work the best if all you guys play is DnD. My group always played several different game lines at once, which avoids confusion and feelings of repetition.

I think this would be the best way to share the running burden while still allowing for maximum character interaction

[ocato]

My friends and I used to do this. It turns out a little... weird if you're not serious. The DM's rogue will be 'sick' or off on a solo quest or some other excuse while he's DMing, and lo and behold, the party finds a +3 dagger. The Wizard and the Barbarian don't want it, so they get stash it for the rogue "when he gets back."

In a world where players can award themselves treasure, there can be no peace. Only fear.

Granted, this was when we were in high school and were just starting out. If you trust yourself and your friends to be responsible, this could work fine.