Hail and or Howdy!

I was wondering, has anyone out there tried to "double GM" a game / campaign? (if so - how was the experience)

Seemingly such an effort would be highly beneficial to the Players and Campaign as a whole + might be a fun change in the way one GMs...

Anyhow that's my question - I would be interested in trying but am hesitant otherwise...

The Gist:

- Setting
- Combat
- Roleplay

some people like a per-arranged campaign setting (sort of like the old d&d settings like Forgotten Realms, Dragon Lance, Ravenloft, and the like) where they don't need to populate the setting as the foundation has already been done for them.

Other GMs like to do Combat (I know DMs/GMs who run games that are purely focused on Combat), while others specialize in the actual delivery of the RP-Element (breathing life into NPCs and acting it all out - reminds me of a Whitewolf game).

Concerns / Ideas Thoughts

Morbid

I have done it before but not in a Rogue Trader campaign. It was actually in a White Wolf campaign.

It worked reasonably well to help an unwieldy group size all get a section of the GMs time but it is interesting sharing your GM vision with someone else. Particularly if instances of "Oh the other GM allowed that... hmmm I wouldn't have let that work." arise.

Essentially if the GMs co-ordinate before, after and during the game it works quite well and you can handle a lot more active players than you could alone.

If you've got yourself a good group that works well together then even the things that you might not have allowed to work if you were solo GMing aren't too much of an issue because you're still controlling the overall story.

I've done this twice. Once with Shadowrun and once with D&D. Both turned out okay. If you trust your other GM not to meta game, and/or only give each other the jist of the mission but not the nuts and bolts of it, then it works wonders for the suspense and mystery.

It works bettter alternating minor missions / endeavors, while the main GM is tracking the overall theme. Even handouts for special events / moments / characters could assist the alternate GM. If both are main GMs and just taking turns, it's best to decide on whose main story arc is up first, and then alternate upon completion of each other's.

For special awards and rules, it's best to discuss as a group and come to a consensus on most minor issues. Major issues need to be decided by the GMs, with little overruling if both GMs are equal and neither are alternates. Obviously if one is main though,!he/she needs to make that call as polite as possible during the alternates control.

I've done this multiple times and it only really worked good in certain circumstances. In a LARP where you have a hundred active players, you need more than a single GM and you need several assistant GMs to boot, and the parameters that each has to stay within well marked.

It also works well in loose campaigns that are essentially a bunch of one-offs with a connecting metaplot.

It does not work as well in more standard linear-based plotline campaigns for a multitude of reasons, mostly having to do with personalities and politics.