Is it possible (and how) to have two MC (or DM, or GM, etc.) to direct a game PbtA (dungeon world/urban shadows/the veil/ etc.)?
Is it possible (and how) to have two MC (or DM, or GM, etc.) to direct a game PbtA (dungeon world/urban shadows/the…
Is it possible (and how) to have two MC (or DM, or GM, etc.) to direct a game PbtA (dungeon world/urban shadows/the…
I’ve heard of multi table games of Night Witches where each table has an mc and the player compose a 6 woman 3 plane team.
I’ve heard of multi table games of Night Witches where each table has an mc and the player compose a 6 woman 3 plane team.
I’ve heard of The Watch and Masks run as multi-table events at conventions
I’ve heard of The Watch and Masks run as multi-table events at conventions
Are you considering multiple GMs for a large group of players or the same group switching out who is GMing session to session? I’ve run and played in the former but don’t have real experience with the latter.
Are you considering multiple GMs for a large group of players or the same group switching out who is GMing session to session? I’ve run and played in the former but don’t have real experience with the latter.
Or two MC at the same table at the same time for the same players?
Or two MC at the same table at the same time for the same players?
Begs the question…Why? I can’t see the advantage to having two GMs at the same table with PbtA. The players already have so much story and world building agency. Instead of being a second GM, concentrate on being a rockstar player. This can be as important, if not more so, than the GM.
Begs the question…Why? I can’t see the advantage to having two GMs at the same table with PbtA. The players already have so much story and world building agency. Instead of being a second GM, concentrate on being a rockstar player. This can be as important, if not more so, than the GM.
I play one group with 4 GMs and no players.
I play one group with 4 GMs and no players.
Richard Ruane It stem from an article about dual DM (tribality.com – Experiment: How To Play D&D With Two Dungeon Masters – Tribality/). Because the DM “throw dices”, the idea is to lower the burden and accelerate the game. Also, it could bring additional creativity to the story. But the mechanic of PbtA is totally different. I’m wondering if it could be possible, like one GM for important NPC and one GM for story and “small fries”.
Richard Ruane It stem from an article about dual DM (tribality.com – Experiment: How To Play D&D With Two Dungeon Masters – Tribality/). Because the DM “throw dices”, the idea is to lower the burden and accelerate the game. Also, it could bring additional creativity to the story. But the mechanic of PbtA is totally different. I’m wondering if it could be possible, like one GM for important NPC and one GM for story and “small fries”.
Gherhartd Sildoenfein exactly my idea, two MC at the same table with the same player.
Gherhartd Sildoenfein exactly my idea, two MC at the same table with the same player.
Maezar also known as GM less gaming 🙂
Maezar also known as GM less gaming 🙂
Joshua Kershaw What you say is true. But my intuition is that there could be a way (unknown to right now) to diversify the story with two GM. Also, some GM are strong for the mechanical and physical resolution while others are strong with the interaction part. If we could merge those two, maybe it could result in an even better game experience.
Joshua Kershaw What you say is true. But my intuition is that there could be a way (unknown to right now) to diversify the story with two GM. Also, some GM are strong for the mechanical and physical resolution while others are strong with the interaction part. If we could merge those two, maybe it could result in an even better game experience.
Also, MCing AW is exhausting. Relaying MC are fresher, with more variety and energy.
Also, MCing AW is exhausting. Relaying MC are fresher, with more variety and energy.
Marc-Alexandre Dube Respectfully, I disagree. It just doesn’t seem to jive with PbtA best practices. PbtA was designed, partially, to prioritize story by reducing the cognitive load of the mechanics. They are so simple, I don’t think you need a “rules gm” on top of a “story gm”. Pick one, or switch off game nights, but I think you’re missing out by reducing your players by one. All the good stuff comes from the players in PbtA. The GM is just a facilitator. They set the scene and react to player actions. I may be assuming incorrectly, but are you fairly new to PbtA? If so, give it a good try playing as it was intended to be played (and ran) first. And see how it goes. Whatever you decide, have fun. It really is a great system.
Marc-Alexandre Dube Respectfully, I disagree. It just doesn’t seem to jive with PbtA best practices. PbtA was designed, partially, to prioritize story by reducing the cognitive load of the mechanics. They are so simple, I don’t think you need a “rules gm” on top of a “story gm”. Pick one, or switch off game nights, but I think you’re missing out by reducing your players by one. All the good stuff comes from the players in PbtA. The GM is just a facilitator. They set the scene and react to player actions. I may be assuming incorrectly, but are you fairly new to PbtA? If so, give it a good try playing as it was intended to be played (and ran) first. And see how it goes. Whatever you decide, have fun. It really is a great system.
I believe the exact effect would depend very much on the exact game. From Murderous Ghosts to Cartel to Bluebeard’s Bride to The Happiest on Earth, there is so much variety.
I believe in most cases double MC would be interesting, except in games where the MC doesn’t have much to do.
I believe the exact effect would depend very much on the exact game. From Murderous Ghosts to Cartel to Bluebeard’s Bride to The Happiest on Earth, there is so much variety.
I believe in most cases double MC would be interesting, except in games where the MC doesn’t have much to do.
Marc-Alexandre Dube Exactly. The idea of sharing the load makes no sense because there is no load. My own PbtA game is less that it is 4 GMs, and more that it is NO GMs. EVERYONE participates in deciding the GM moves. There are no secrets; the players know all sorts of things that the characters don’t.
Marc-Alexandre Dube Exactly. The idea of sharing the load makes no sense because there is no load. My own PbtA game is less that it is 4 GMs, and more that it is NO GMs. EVERYONE participates in deciding the GM moves. There are no secrets; the players know all sorts of things that the characters don’t.
Maezar wow! That is a very novel way of doing things. This is the suggestion I was looking for. I did not think of it in such a way. Thanks.
Maezar wow! That is a very novel way of doing things. This is the suggestion I was looking for. I did not think of it in such a way. Thanks.
Joshua Kershaw what you say is exact. You are also right in saying that I’m new to PbtA. For me, it is not the cognitive load, but rather my weakness with interactions. I’m pretty good with the rest (descriptions, world, coherence, rules, fairness). So I’m wondering if there was experiments from the traditional 1 GM / multiple players.
Joshua Kershaw what you say is exact. You are also right in saying that I’m new to PbtA. For me, it is not the cognitive load, but rather my weakness with interactions. I’m pretty good with the rest (descriptions, world, coherence, rules, fairness). So I’m wondering if there was experiments from the traditional 1 GM / multiple players.
Marc-Alexandre Dube Maybe let the players control both sides of interactions. Instead of saying, “The Keeper looks at you sternly, shouting, ‘You have failed in your duties to protect this kingdom”, ask, “What do you think the Keeper says when you return with the bad news about the villages?”
When a player asks, “I ask the tavern patrons whether or not they’ve heard anything about the trouble up at the tower,” make them roll and then let them tell what they learn and why it is fantastic, humdrum, or terrible. Coax the interactions out of THEM.
I forget where I learned it, but here’s a fun system using 1d6:
1. No, and… (it’s even worse than you feared)
2. No!
3. No, but… (maybe you can get somewhere on this)
4. Yes, but…(there’s a hitch. Ask what it is)
5. Yes!
6. Yes, and…(it’s even better than you hoped)
Marc-Alexandre Dube Maybe let the players control both sides of interactions. Instead of saying, “The Keeper looks at you sternly, shouting, ‘You have failed in your duties to protect this kingdom”, ask, “What do you think the Keeper says when you return with the bad news about the villages?”
When a player asks, “I ask the tavern patrons whether or not they’ve heard anything about the trouble up at the tower,” make them roll and then let them tell what they learn and why it is fantastic, humdrum, or terrible. Coax the interactions out of THEM.
I forget where I learned it, but here’s a fun system using 1d6:
1. No, and… (it’s even worse than you feared)
2. No!
3. No, but… (maybe you can get somewhere on this)
4. Yes, but…(there’s a hitch. Ask what it is)
5. Yes!
6. Yes, and…(it’s even better than you hoped)
Looks like FU.
Sending everything back to the players works well but significantly changes the gameplay. Some players really hate that (some love it). And it doesn’t leave much to do to the MC, better go all the way to the MCfull experience.
Looks like FU.
Sending everything back to the players works well but significantly changes the gameplay. Some players really hate that (some love it). And it doesn’t leave much to do to the MC, better go all the way to the MCfull experience.