PDA

View Full Version : GURPS - Mutliple DM's



Gwazi Magnum
2013-06-28, 07:37 AM
Currently me and some friends are starting a GURPS group where we all used this (http://www.clanwebsite.org/games/rpg/Dawn_of_Worlds_game_1_0Final.pdf) system here to create our world as a group.

And because of this everyone has their own quest lines and ideas for the world. So a system we have planned is when we're following a certain persons quest line that person becomes DM for that adventure or allows someone else to volunteer to be DM of it with that player giving them the description/outline of the adventure.

What I'm basically wondering is how well does this kind of DM system normally tend to work? Are they are good ways to make it work better for a group?

Mutazoia
2013-06-28, 09:11 AM
Currently me and some friends are starting a GURPS group where we all used this (http://www.clanwebsite.org/games/rpg/Dawn_of_Worlds_game_1_0Final.pdf) system here to create our world as a group.

And because of this everyone has their own quest lines and ideas for the world. So a system we have planned is when we're following a certain persons quest line that person becomes DM for that adventure or allows someone else to volunteer to be DM of it with that player giving them the description/outline of the adventure.

What I'm basically wondering is how well does this kind of DM system normally tend to work? Are they are good ways to make it work better for a group?

Ever hear the saying "Too many chefs spoil the pot"? I would suggest you each take turns GMing separate campaigns, each following their own plot arc, but follow one to completion before switching over to follow the next. Other wise you can have plot arc's crossing each other and/or people trying to drive the PC's on to THEIR arc and getting into arguments over who's arc they're supposed to be following... The possibilities for chaos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmzuRXLzqKk) and confusion are endless.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-06-28, 10:07 AM
Ever hear the saying "Too many chefs spoil the pot"? I would suggest you each take turns GMing separate campaigns, each following their own plot arc, but follow one to completion before switching over to follow the next. Other wise you can have plot arc's crossing each other and/or people trying to drive the PC's on to THEIR arc and getting into arguments over who's arc they're supposed to be following... The possibilities for chaos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmzuRXLzqKk) and confusion are endless.

I think people are too into the idea now for us to deviate from this plan.
They're all excited about having been able to influence and help create the world, so they all feel some ownership over it and want to be able to have a hand in the campaign in their world.

Though the general agreement is that we'll finish one quest line before starting another. I can really some see one problem player in the sense that he'll try to push people into 'his' story, but it shouldn't be too much an issue if the other players make it clear to him that he needs to wait.

But this does lead me to a side question.
What do we do about players that treat it too much like PVP?

This player mentioned above, I'll call him Player D for simplicity's sake. Lacks imagination to start with, when everyone else made their own custom species he just made generic humans, then two human sub-types, one named Oghren ripped out of warhammer and another called Chamelonmen ripped right out of Thin Men from X-Com. Though his lack of creativity isn't the concern.

The concern is that he's making them specialize in stealth and espionage. And his plan is to 'stealth-fully' infiltrate and kidnap leaders and replace them with morphed copies of every other race so his race essentially controls the galaxy without anyone knowing it.

Now, the issue here also is that he is very bad at stealth and subtlety. Where is best example of rogues is preparing a death attack in clear sight or declaring out loud that he "Activate's his sneak skill". His only successful time pulling off any cool tricks was when he cutscened it where the DM out of mercy allowed him to introduce one of his d&d characters in a past campaign by basically him saying his character did almost whatever he felt like the character doing.

And he doesn't take losing well, when he has a vision of what is character is doing he wants to make it happen no matter what and when something even questions it he get's panicked because it won't be an easy victory for him. For example, I made a race called the Wolven. They essentially run and control the federation of the solar system (It's a space RP) acting at it's police force, government and law enforcement. One of the things they have is specializing in surveillance. Player D almost freaked out to this completely because it meant it would be something that makes his stealth goal harder to reach and he started claiming I was Meta-gaming, when really I made a race that acts as the government good at surveillance... which fits flavour wise completely.

So any advice on how to handle this would be appreciated since we're worried he not being a very patient person or skilled person at stealth will fail at his goal very early and will end up blaming us for meta-gaming or something.

Mr Beer
2013-06-28, 06:21 PM
A player who doesn't like "losing" and already believes other people are meta-gaming in order to defeat him is not someone you want GM-ing. I don't know how to fix that now it's locked in to happen though so your best bet is to make sure everyone is aware is the issue and prevent him from pulling too many shenanigans via real life intervention.

Mutazoia
2013-06-28, 08:26 PM
I think people are too into the idea now for us to deviate from this plan.
They're all excited about having been able to influence and help create the world, so they all feel some ownership over it and want to be able to have a hand in the campaign in their world.

Though the general agreement is that we'll finish one quest line before starting another. I can really some see one problem player in the sense that he'll try to push people into 'his' story, but it shouldn't be too much an issue if the other players make it clear to him that he needs to wait.

But this does lead me to a side question.
What do we do about players that treat it too much like PVP?

This player mentioned above, I'll call him Player D for simplicity's sake. Lacks imagination to start with, when everyone else made their own custom species he just made generic humans, then two human sub-types, one named Oghren ripped out of warhammer and another called Chamelonmen ripped right out of Thin Men from X-Com. Though his lack of creativity isn't the concern.

The concern is that he's making them specialize in stealth and espionage. And his plan is to 'stealth-fully' infiltrate and kidnap leaders and replace them with morphed copies of every other race so his race essentially controls the galaxy without anyone knowing it.

Now, the issue here also is that he is very bad at stealth and subtlety. Where is best example of rogues is preparing a death attack in clear sight or declaring out loud that he "Activate's his sneak skill". His only successful time pulling off any cool tricks was when he cutscened it where the DM out of mercy allowed him to introduce one of his d&d characters in a past campaign by basically him saying his character did almost whatever he felt like the character doing.

And he doesn't take losing well, when he has a vision of what is character is doing he wants to make it happen no matter what and when something even questions it he get's panicked because it won't be an easy victory for him. For example, I made a race called the Wolven. They essentially run and control the federation of the solar system (It's a space RP) acting at it's police force, government and law enforcement. One of the things they have is specializing in surveillance. Player D almost freaked out to this completely because it meant it would be something that makes his stealth goal harder to reach and he started claiming I was Meta-gaming, when really I made a race that acts as the government good at surveillance... which fits flavour wise completely.

So any advice on how to handle this would be appreciated since we're worried he not being a very patient person or skilled person at stealth will fail at his goal very early and will end up blaming us for meta-gaming or something.

(If this is the guy mentioned in a certain thread about meta gaming and cheating....your setting yourself up for more head-ache....)

You could always hint that if he ever manages to take control of the government, the Wolven will all be working for HIM, making his super duper munchkin spy force all that much stronger...

Gwazi Magnum
2013-06-28, 10:29 PM
(If this is the guy mentioned in a certain thread about meta gaming and cheating....your setting yourself up for more head-ache....)

You could always hint that if he ever manages to take control of the government, the Wolven will all be working for HIM, making his super duper munchkin spy force all that much stronger...

This isn't the fiat DM who I had quit from.

Though I don't see how promising him more power if he succeeds will help at all.

Mutazoia
2013-06-29, 03:39 AM
This isn't the fiat DM who I had quit from.

Though I don't see how promising him more power if he succeeds will help at all.

Oh....your not letting him succeed. But if he THINKS he'll succeed and get more power then he's less likely to throw a hissy. Besides if he actually DOES succeed...the campaign will be pretty much over at that point anyway.

Andrewmoreton
2013-06-29, 04:27 AM
Multiple GM's in the same campaign can work well. It is the default assumption in Ars Magica. I have run several campaigns where the GM has changed between plot threads.
Normally each GM runs a plot for a few sessions, the co gm's may comment if things stray into their area . Also normally each GM tries to make sure his PC is not involved in the current plot or if they are that they do not do anything spectacular, but this has the same potential problems of any DMPC.
However we usually only have 2 or at the most 3 of our group of 6 co-gming and all of us have been gming for years , so we don't generally have a problem of conflict of GM's.

Autolykos
2013-06-29, 04:57 AM
Most of the time, we played Shadowrun like this. One of us would step up with an idea for a run, and say what types of characters were needed (basically his Mr. Johnson calling a few fixers). Then the rest of us would assemble a team based on what was needed and which character we'd like to play. Most players had multiple characters (one pretty much only played his ninja-adept, though), so we had constantly changing team compositions, with most of our characters either knowing each other or having at least heard of them. It felt quite natural that way, and non-active characters (like deckers, riggers or retired runners) could be used as connections when they were only needed for a quick task (and got a smaller share of the money and a token point of Karma).

Gwazi Magnum
2013-06-29, 12:35 PM
Oh....your not letting him succeed. But if he THINKS he'll succeed and get more power then he's less likely to throw a hissy. Besides if he actually DOES succeed...the campaign will be pretty much over at that point anyway.

I'm still not sure how him being promised more power if he wins but then failing would help.


Multiple GM's in the same campaign can work well. It is the default assumption in Ars Magica. I have run several campaigns where the GM has changed between plot threads.
Normally each GM runs a plot for a few sessions, the co gm's may comment if things stray into their area . Also normally each GM tries to make sure his PC is not involved in the current plot or if they are that they do not do anything spectacular, but this has the same potential problems of any DMPC.
However we usually only have 2 or at the most 3 of our group of 6 co-gming and all of us have been gming for years , so we don't generally have a problem of conflict of GM's.

In our case it's 5 players there's currently 3 of us willing to DM for some of it.


Most of the time, we played Shadowrun like this. One of us would step up with an idea for a run, and say what types of characters were needed (basically his Mr. Johnson calling a few fixers). Then the rest of us would assemble a team based on what was needed and which character we'd like to play. Most players had multiple characters (one pretty much only played his ninja-adept, though), so we had constantly changing team compositions, with most of our characters either knowing each other or having at least heard of them. It felt quite natural that way, and non-active characters (like deckers, riggers or retired runners) could be used as connections when they were only needed for a quick task (and got a smaller share of the money and a token point of Karma).

Sounds cool, the plan we have at the moment though is everyone sticks with the same character, just our PC becomes more of a helper character or guide if it's a questline based on their backstory, otherwise the DM at the time just needs to have restraint in what they're character can accomplish.

137ben
2013-06-29, 12:41 PM
The concern is that he's making them specialize in stealth and espionage. And his plan is to 'stealth-fully' infiltrate and kidnap leaders and replace them with morphed copies of every other race so his race essentially controls the galaxy without anyone knowing it.

Now, the issue here also is that he is very bad at stealth and subtlety.
And therein lies the issue: that is almost certainly going to fail. If he can't take failing well AND he can't avoid using destined-to-fail-tactics, you have an issue:smalleek:

Gwazi Magnum
2013-06-29, 01:08 PM
And therein lies the issue: that is almost certainly going to fail. If he can't take failing well AND he can't avoid using destined-to-fail-tactics, you have an issue:smalleek:

We're trying to explain that it won't end up working.

But we're also trying to explain that even if it could work he'd hit snags on the way, and we should be able to end the plan in it's tracks at one of it's snags. If anything else at that point he needs to accept the world wasn't designed to be PVP and other players did not spend time working on their own races and creations just so he could take it over.

(And honestly, it would be a real slap in the face to all of us who put time and effort into unique race concepts to lose to someone who put no creative effort into races, making humans and them the sub-races ripped right out of table top games or video games).

Mr Beer
2013-06-29, 05:26 PM
If anything else at that point he needs to accept the world wasn't designed to be PVP and other players did not spend time working on their own races and creations just so he could take it over.

You probably need to make that explicitly clear as a group and then if starts doing PvP, threaten to revoke his DM rights.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-06-30, 03:42 AM
You probably need to make that explicitly clear as a group and then if starts doing PvP, threaten to revoke his DM rights.

Probably, but after character creation today I think he's better getting the idea that it's not meant to be PVP.