csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club) (05/23/85)
In article <2847@drutx.UUCP> slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) writes: >We are in someone else's world now, having come to a pause in mine. (I >needed a rest--that is hard work!) They ended up with, among other things, >a ring of regeneration, a nice staff, and a mithril circlet which gives the >wearer psionics. The last is tempered by the fact that psionics are hated >and killed when found. The PC with that one is going to have to watch it. > >However, I do intend to slow them down a bit when I DM again. > > Sue Brezden > This brings up an interesting point. Rotating DMs within a single campaign. Who else has done this? In my first year here ('81), I had already spent 3-4 years running a D&D, then AD&D campaign. I joined the science-fiction club here (WATSFIC), and met other people who had also been D&Ding for some time also. The person whose campaign it was (Al Brooks) had been using this system (ie taking turns at DMing) to a) give himself more time to write his own scenarios and b) to get in some playing himself. The benefits are/were obvious. There are, however, some not-so-obvious not-so-good things about it. Firstly, the plot line can suffer terribly. One DM has some ideas about how he would like the politics (or anything else) of the world to operate, and another feels differently, and the world changes as you move from DM to DM. There are two ways to handle this. The first (which we did not use) is to have different worlds with different characters, different rules, different everything, one for each DM. If DM A is running, you use character A, rule set A, etc. Since we didn't use this, I can't offer any comment, except to wonder whether the campaign would hold together for lack to cohesion between the parts. The option we DID use was that Al was to become the head DM, and as such, would control the world's politics, rules, etc. Other DMs would simply construct scenarios which "fit" more-or-less well into Al's scheme of things. This, in turn, brought to light, another problem. We ignored it. The problem was that the subsidiary DMs had to know some inner workings of the universe that were not (yet) known to the players. It should be pointed out here, though, that "playing to win" took a back seat to role-playing. People became their characters, and, in our case, the information the player had but the character didn't was very rarely (I can only think of once or twice over a 2.5 year period) used. Another problem we encountered was not as inherent in the system as the problem just described. It essentially was that, inevitably, when a S-DM was running (particularly those with less DMing experience) the temptation was great to include in a "last-room" type of treasure one or two very "neat" magic items. Standing alone, this was not much of a problem. The problem occurred as a result of the fact that these adventures were worked to last 2-3 weeks (w/ 8hr sessions). Sooner or later there was bound to be a problem. And there was. The average level was 6-7 (we had started as 1st a year before) and we were dungeon stompers. The solution to this problem was fairly straightforward. We started fighting tougher monsters. I recall taking on an 18th level fire mage (we won); a magic-proficient (could use ANY magic spell, not only MU spells) lich (he won); and large amounts of VIII/IX level monsters. If we had to think, plan, and execute carefully, we were not having play-balance troubles. The moment we could mindlessly eliminate what we were fighting was the moment to step up the opponent. It didn't hurt the play-balance (re amt of magic owned) that one of our number was a pack-rat extra-ordinaire. Giving an item to him was like feeding it to a black hole. *sigh* My. Excuse the length. We now return you to your regular programming. Gilles Dignard (aka Thunderbuns, the baby storm-giant magic user/druid) University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario Facts all come with points of view. - David Byrne
phred@gitpyr.UUCP (Will Rogers) (05/27/85)
[all hail the mighty line-eater bug]
Fascinating comments on this topic. I have been playing D&D and similar
variants for about seven or eight years now. We have rotated through a
large number of DM's in what is essentially a transient population with
a few more permanent locals. In general MOST, but not all, of our characters
are "transportable". That is, each DM will allow most characters originating inanother DM's "world" to play in his world also. Occasionally this is tempered
by a review to determine the acceptability of any unusual magic items, or powersand the like that a particular character may possess. Sometimes a DM will require the character to leave a particularly powerful item "at home" so as to
preserve game balance - This has always worked exceptionally well for us with
very few complaints from either players or DMs. The largest problem that we
have encountered appears to be an economic one between campaigns. The best
example is one that my some of my own characters are involved in. My three
oldest characters and to a lesser extent the next three spent a long period of
their development in a "world" where, eventually, inflation became rampant and
the value of a single "gold piece" was very low. On the other hand, when these
same characters play in some of the newer campaigns of the last three or four
years they find that the value of their gold is drastically increased. An item
that would cost them say 10000 g.p. in their original campaign can be had for a
fourth of that value now. It is easy for me to regulate this problem because itis my own characters that have the potential for great abuse, and I do not
permit it. But it does create interesting problems from time to time. One
factor that helps to limit the problem is that the three characters who have
accumulated the greatest wealth are so strong now as to usually overpower other
characters that are common in our playing groups. So they are basically
"retired" these days, and my younger and, truthfully, more interesting
characters see a lot more action. The older guys simply preserve a certain
mystique about the "old days".
On the other hand, there are a few local campaigns which have their own,
exclusive sets of characters, and this has worked out quite well. The DM will
not permit the use of "outside" characters, nor should any character ever be
taken "outside", particularly if you intend to return him to action in that
original campaign.
There is occasionally a problem with "time" when characters are moved
from one DM's campaign to another DM's campaign. Normally we treat this very
loosely except that using a character in one campaign and then using him in
another before the first is completed is frowned upon. By "campaign" I mean
a particular planned excursion probably lasting two to four sessions, not
campaign in the sense of the DM's "world" in its entirety and perpetuity.
Happy campaigning!
Will Rogers
...!gatech!gitpyr!phred
-----
omni.omni.vor.ils.dme.sdf.adf.ndb.ohmmmmmmm.hmmmmm.omni.omni........ -Wileysps@drusd.UUCP (ShaplandSP) (05/28/85)
I have participated in two schemes of multi-DM play. 1) Rotating DMs. Each DM had their own set of rule modifications, their own world definitions, and their own set of player characters. This scheme worked well. It provided each of the players, all with DMing experience, the joys of DMing and the pleasures of playing. We rotated on a weekly basis (4 DMs). The only disadvantage was slowing the action in each world down. 2) Co-DMs. The master DM developed and controlled the scenerio. The subordinate DMs assisted the master DM in this effort, but it was his responsibility. Each subordinate DM was given "a piece of the action" in the form of NPCs and a region of the "dungeon" to develop. These were reviewed by all DMs for consistence with the scenerio. During play, subordinate DMs would: a) Control NPC's and monster's actions. b) Assist with die-rolls and table look-ups. c) Conduct any side actions with players. (If a character was seperated from the rest of the party, the player was also seperated from the group!) This system worked very well. It provided smoother play and allowed for realistic variances in the society of the "dungeon." The disadvantage was that it required 1-2 extra hours/session for DM coordination. S.P. Shapland, aka AMLWCH, Lord of the Karpia Dragons drusd!sps 11655 N. Logan St. Northglenn, CO 80233
quint@topaz.ARPA (Amqueue) (05/29/85)
In article <14621@watmath.UUCP> csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club) writes: >This brings up an interesting point. Rotating DMs within a single >campaign. Who else has done this? I have. I run in a world that was created by someone who no longer plays. At times he has bemoaned his world's fate: "Don't ever let someone else dm in your world... they'll take it over." His main problem was that one of our players has an eidetic memory, and remembered things better than he did, and got real defensive and upset when he was inconsistant and started screwing characters. (this is not just my opinion). She and her boyfriend effectively inherited the world, and have been major arbitrators ever since. (It helps to have someone with an eidetic memory for this). They are currently just about begging us to run some games, since they are in many ways burning out. We have what is effectively a "bible", similar to a tv series writers guide, that tells people the basics of the world. No one is allowed to dm in it unless they have been through at least 3 campaigns of various levels. If someone wants to create a high level NPC, or a town, they get together with Liz and Al and ask questions about what is permitted, and what isnt. We havent had any problems with politics or anything like that in the world yet. We usually have about 5 campaigns going at once, coordinated by the calendar, and so have lots of characters and lots of opportunities to play different things. There is no overall plotline; does life have a plotline? Our group is a bunch of people who live on a landmass about the size of Europe. The population was decimated (or worse) about 250 years ago in the Demon Wars. Lots of gods died then. Recently, we ahve been coming up against lots of statues and magic items taht are actually people who were enchanted before the demon wars. As a result, we (the players) have all been asked to help create the ancient map, contributing town names and economics, mostly, and making up old interactions between towns. So we are effectively all creating the world together... lots of fun! >My. Excuse the length. We now return you to your regular programming. ditto here, but it was fun >Gilles Dignard (aka Thunderbuns, the baby storm-giant magic user/druid) >University of Waterloo >Waterloo, Ontario have fun /amqueue >Facts all come with points of view. > - David Byrne "But I cant hear the music if you are just playing it in your head!"
lear@topaz.ARPA (eliot lear) (05/29/85)
> I have participated in two schemes of multi-DM play. > > 1) Rotating DMs. > Each DM had their own set of rule modifications, > their own world definitions, and their own set of > player characters. > This scheme worked well. It provided each of the players, > all with DMing experience, the joys of DMing and the > pleasures of playing. We rotated on a weekly basis (4 DMs). > The only disadvantage was slowing the action in each > world down. > > 2) Co-DMs. > The master DM developed and controlled the scenerio. > The subordinate DMs assisted the master DM in this effort, > but it was his responsibility. > Each subordinate DM was given "a piece of the action" in > the form of NPCs and a region of the "dungeon" to develop. > These were reviewed by all DMs for consistence with the > scenerio. > During play, subordinate DMs would: > a) Control NPC's and monster's actions. > b) Assist with die-rolls and table look-ups. > c) Conduct any side actions with players. > (If a character was seperated from the rest of the party, > the player was also seperated from the group!) > This system worked very well. It provided smoother play and > allowed for realistic variances in the society of the "dungeon." > The disadvantage was that it required 1-2 extra hours/session > for DM coordination. > > S.P. Shapland, aka AMLWCH, Lord of the Karpia Dragons > drusd!sps > 11655 N. Logan St. Northglenn, CO 80233 Bravo! I think that is such a good idea that it deserves to be reposted! Even with the extra hour to 2 hours it should be worth it! -- uucp: [{allegra,seismo,ihnp4}!topaz!lear] arpa: [Lear@RU-BLUE.arpa]