Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site drusd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!drutx!drusd!sps
From: sps@drusd.UUCP (ShaplandSP)
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
Subject: Re: Multi-DM campaigns
Message-ID: <1348@drusd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-May-85 09:04:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: drusd.1348
Posted: Tue May 28 09:04:13 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 02:30:29 EDT
References: <2847@drutx.UUCP>, <14621@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Lines: 34

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