i've always been really curious about how this would work. i think there is a ton of potential for really interesting stories. pretty sure it would require a lot of tight coordination and planning on the part of the 2 GMs, and would probably work best if they were super familiar with each other and the other's style of GMing.

anyone have any experience with this?

That is a logistical nightmare that I'd probably never try. The closest I've come is having an assistant GM, and that's only if I'm unfamiliar with the system or the setting. I'm not even sure how you'd play a game with two GMs, let alone why you'd want to. Would it be two games that are canon with each other? Then why not run them separately?

Would be very difficult to keep everything on track, I think.

You don't necessarily need two GMs - my own game group varies between seven and eight PCs, and I've never needed a second GM. Then again, I do run the game on online, via play-by-post, rather than doing it tabletop.

I've never table-topped with more than 6, but my PbP has around 18 players right now and we've got 3 GMs. We share our information as well (we each GM a specific faction - hutt's, black suns, csa) so if we need on of the GM's to RP for their faction in the other's campaign, we help each other out.

Fair does, Moses. Sounds like you got a good thing going.

One thing you could try to do is have one GM play in an imperial role and the other has a hutt organization. Some times the GMs would agree and work together or be separate and at each other like in the movies.

I tried recruiting an assistant GM as was suggested, but everyone wants to play. (I guess I'm flattered?)

I did run an idea past the group of giving a couple of players some NPCs to roll for in order to speed up combat, and keep everyone involved. I had one player step up, and then we ended up not even getting to the combat that night, so we'll see how it works when we resume..

I have one of my players as a co-GM. He knows star wars almost as much as I do (although a lot of it he only knows from fan fiction, and I have to remind him of that). I get him to help me arbitrate the rules, and help the players get them. So far the biggest thing I've had him do for me is sit in on my brain storming sessions and.

But other than that, I totally don't know how to utilize his "status" as a co-GM. Any thoughts?

I have one of my players as a co-GM. He knows star wars almost as much as I do (although a lot of it he only knows from fan fiction, and I have to remind him of that). I get him to help me arbitrate the rules, and help the players get them. So far the biggest thing I've had him do for me is sit in on my brain storming sessions and.

But other than that, I totally don't know how to utilize his "status" as a co-GM. Any thoughts?

Knowing it from fanfic sounds pretty interesting. He must have some notably different takes on the universe. I think I'd value that kind of input very highly.

The problem with having a co-GM is that it implies you stand on equal ground. In my experience, one of you has to be the primary GM while the other is on hand for advice, recommendations, and emergencies.

For example, my assistant GM in the other game is still a player, and it's acknowledged by everyone that I have final authority. But while he and I both have an in-depth knowledge of the setting (the Halo universe, for those curious) he's played the system we're using for years and was actually in the military. So when we need to hammer together a mechanic or a roll, I'll often turn to him for advice. Alternatively, when I'm planning game, I'll frequently talk to him about protocol, tactics, and just some good jargon to throw in to make it really feel like a military SF game.

But at no point does his power supersede my own. Even if he comes up with one idea, and potentially fervently disagrees with something I do, he still has to accept that it's my decision to make. Once I make a ruling, it stands. He can't overturn it or veto it.

GMs are meant to be arbiters of the entire game, not just the rules and the story, so you can't have democracy at that level of decision-making. The system would fall apart if one GM wanted to go one way, and the co-GM wanted to go the other.

I have seen it done during gaming conventions with other systems. If the adventure is already plotted out, and there is a reason to have two separate groups then it can work. Usually there is a third, final GM going between the two groups.

It seems like a lot of work for even a short game. I wouldn't want to attempt it on a long running campaign.

Now, perhaps the occasional cross over adventure. That could be fun.

I tried it with my GM-Mentor long time ago.

Was a bit chaotic at the beginning but after one hour it begin to be really awesome and funny. We only used this dual mode three or four times (we where about 8 players). Also we used this but it was more a GM-Trainer mode.

I prefer the 1 player - 1 GM (my main game) but it was a nice experience

Depends. I have seen it done well with large groups and the GMs splitting off the story (The players were actually resistant to this) and running two games at the same time.

If it is shared GM duties you need to figure out what to do with the GMs character when he is running the game

I've done it in the past. I started at a table with 18 PCS (D&D game, 2nd ed). It can be really difficult but not hugely overwhelming. What it really takes is one person telling a story and the other GM helping out. Basically GM 1 tells the story, plans the adventure and looks to run it for a number of sessions needed. GM2 is there to help out. Runs character interactions in non-vital situations. Basically wanders around the table to keep everyone in game. You end up with a party of 18 walking into a bar and it's a bit of an invasion. Often we would end up with half the party in one bar and the other half out accomplishing something else either for the story or for a player specific side plot.

When the whole party is together, GM1 tells the story and GM2 helps with logistics. Battles involving 18PCs often involved 40NPCs and that's where the second GM is key. you can split the badguys up and they can act independently of each other with the two GMs each controlling a group of them. We color coded them so PCs would know which GM to address an attack/action towards. in the end GM1 always maintained control of the story and GM2 helped manage that story. It did involve a lot of communication before and during but it was fun.

Currently the group is 5 PCs of which 4 are GMs and we rotate story telling responsibilities as people have ideas. keeps it fresh and going forward. I also play in a second group so we occasionally add that group in as our parties interact on bigger more invovled stories and usually run that with two GMs.

If it's something you want to do, know your partner/co-GM and the story before you get started. That way you can run side characters and plots (henchman x or whatever) or you can just run odd stuff (we have used the "i'm going to go play cards over in that other room and basically have a different subgame until shooting starts" style).