Quote from: jhkim;454245I'm just saying collaboration isn't a more "advanced" technique than solo creation - quite the opposite.  Writing in collaboration is often a beginner's approach, whereas solo writing your own series is advanced.  For example, television shows - even very long-lived ones like Doctor Who - are almost always written by multiple authors.  The same goes for comic series.  In books, big name authors write series solo - but it is fairly standard for second-string authors to write for someone else's series.  Collaboration doesn't take more skill - just slightly different skills and a willingness to work together.

In TV shows there's a word for what those secondary authors do: Filler.  So what you're saying is that a multi-gm campaign doesn't require both GMs to be excellent, but what it'll produce in that case is a campaign that is great with moments of less-than-greatness? Or of course, if both (or all) the GMs involved are "second-stringers" as you said, you'll end up with games that are less-than-great with moments of fucking-awful?

RPGPundit

Also, some players in a group may consider different GMs to be the best of the group.

Quote from: RPGPundit;454307In TV shows there's a word for what those secondary authors do: Filler.

It's a matter of taste which writers are the best out of a series' writing staff.

Quote from: RPGPundit;454307In TV shows there's a word for what those secondary authors do: Filler.  So what you're saying is that a multi-gm campaign doesn't require both GMs to be excellent, but what it'll produce in that case is a campaign that is great with moments of less-than-greatness? Or of course, if both (or all) the GMs involved are "second-stringers" as you said, you'll end up with games that are less-than-great with moments of fucking-awful?

Perhaps your games are all works of art with never a less-than-great moment, and they shine over anything that lowly television has to offer.  Given this prodigious talent, I would urge you to get rich by publishing, given that you are so much better than television & serial fiction writers.  

However, for the rest of us, we're just playing a game, eating some snacks, and having fun with our friends.  There are ups and downs, and this is regardless of whether there is a single GM or multiple GMs.  Even a great GM will have less-than-great moments in their campaigns, and even a few lousy moments that we try to avoid in the future.

I need break from gming so we are trying this for the first time. I'll tell you how it goes.

Quote from: jhkim;454333Perhaps your games are all works of art with never a less-than-great moment, and they shine over anything that lowly television has to offer.  Given this prodigious talent, I would urge you to get rich by publishing, given that you are so much better than television & serial fiction writers.  

However, for the rest of us, we're just playing a game, eating some snacks, and having fun with our friends.  There are ups and downs, and this is regardless of whether there is a single GM or multiple GMs.  Even a great GM will have less-than-great moments in their campaigns, and even a few lousy moments that we try to avoid in the future.

Ah yes, there's nothing more disingenuous than a Storygame Swine pulling out the "we're just having fun" card when all their usual pseudo-intellectual bullshit has failed.  Pulling it out a bit early this time, aren't you? I guess you've figured out by now how poor some of your other weapons of choice are in this particular arena, huh?

RPGPundit

I'm with pundit on that... If two things are being offered, I'd rather have the better one.

Quote from: RPGPundit;454180EDIT: I see that later you essentially admit that co-GMing is an "advanced" technique; that is to say, that it requires that the GMs in question be above-average.  That's the essence of what I'm saying; I'm not suggesting that it can't possibly be a good experience or whatever, but that it requires that BOTH GMs be generally together and be excellent GMs individually.  Only someone who really doesn't give a fuck about emulation could possibly think otherwise; you know, Swine.

I disagree that co-GMing is, or has to be, an 'advanced' technique, or that it requires both GMs to be 'above-average.'  

It could simply be a matter of two GMs playing off each others' strengths and weakness and collaborating to create something larger than just their own individual visions.  

Some GMs are better at the bookwork end of things or system mastery while another GM might be better at pacing, flow, and speaking.  There is a black hole filled with the GMs that fall between the bookends of GMing abilities, and if two GMs get together to work with each other, it doesn't necessary mean that one is better than the other, or that one GM is imparting GM knowledge from on high to the lesser GM.

Quote from: RPGPundit;454363Ah yes, there's nothing more disingenuous than a Storygame Swine pulling out the "we're just having fun" card when all their usual pseudo-intellectual bullshit has failed.

You're actually calling others disingenuous? After you've spent a thread raising what you know are bullshit objections so that you can maintain the stupid stance you took in your OP? After you said, "Er, guys, let's not talk about Amber anymore 'cause...er...yeah"?

Let's talk about disingenuous. In another thread, you took six to ten people agreeing with you as proof that your point was valid. Now we have about the same number of folks saying you're wrong. That's proof that you're wrong, right?

Seanchai

Quote from: Drohem;454437I disagree that co-GMing is, or has to be, an 'advanced' technique, or that it requires both GMs to be 'above-average.'  

It could simply be a matter of two GMs playing off each others' strengths and weakness and collaborating to create something larger than just their own individual visions.  

Some GMs are better at the bookwork end of things or system mastery while another GM might be better at pacing, flow, and speaking.  There is a black hole filled with the GMs that fall between the bookends of GMing abilities, and if two GMs get together to work with each other, it doesn't necessary mean that one is better than the other, or that one GM is imparting GM knowledge from on high to the lesser GM.

Exactly.  I lapsed into sarcasm earlier, but this matches what I was trying to say.  

With great GMs, then the results are great.  With OK GMs, then the results are less great but generally still fun.

Quote from: RPGPundit;454307In TV shows there's a word for what those secondary authors do: Filler.  So what you're saying is that a multi-gm campaign doesn't require both GMs to be excellent, but what it'll produce in that case is a campaign that is great with moments of less-than-greatness? Or of course, if both (or all) the GMs involved are "second-stringers" as you said, you'll end up with games that are less-than-great with moments of fucking-awful?

RPGPundit

I think Richard Curtis would be a bit offended if you told him his Doctor Who episode was filler.

It really wasn't. It was a critical part of the end of the universe story arch with more of a look into Amy's weird Time change resisting abilities that still are yet to be explained.

Quote from: Ian Warner;454481I think Richard Curtis would be a bit offended if you told him his Doctor Who episode was filler.

It really wasn't. It was a critical part of the end of the universe story arch with more of a look into Amy's weird Time change resisting abilities that still are yet to be explained.

True, but Curtis only wrote one episode.  For co-GMing, I think a better parallel is regular writers who are not the head writer.  For example, from 2005-2009, the head writer was Russell T. Davies.  However, I think that many episodes by other authors, like Steven Moffat, were excellent and should not be considered inferior "filler".

There's a great book called 'On The Psychology of Military Incompetence' by Norman Dixon that basically says "The peacetime structures of the army appeal to people whose psychology  makes them unfit to command in times of war, however competent they may in peacetime." His conclusion is that, given you accept his analysis, it's a miracle that so many military commanders are so competent, rather than it being surprising so many are rubbish.

I see the same thing going on here. GMing has a deep-seated appeal for people that want to be in control. Unfortunately, although they may be great GMs working  on their own, they  are simply not cut out to be a GM as part of a group. In fact, they see 'group GMing' as a threat, and end up, probably unconsciously, doing whatever they can to undermine it.  

Fortunately, unlike military commanders in times of war, we're not forced to group GM unless we want to. If you find the idea makes you uncomfortable, it's probably best that you don't enter the potentially threatening psychological arena it represents. After all, we shouldn't allow our own 'inner demons' to spoil anyone else's fun.

Quote from: Glazer;454524I see the same thing going on here. GMing has a deep-seated appeal for people that want to be in control. Unfortunately, although they may be great GMs working  on their own, they  are simply not cut out to be a GM as part of a group. In fact, they see 'group GMing' as a threat, and end up, probably unconsciously, doing whatever they can to undermine it.  

I have to seriously question your premise that wanting to be DM is about control.  I only have my own experiences to draw on, but in our group all five members have DM'd and will do so again.  No-one has issues with 'relinquishing control' when they return to being a PC. In fact, in my experience its a positive. Having experienced the challenge of DMing, we are much more supportive of the DM as players.  

For me, the main motives for being DM is to realise the vision of the sort of game I would love to play and to, dare I say it, give enjoyment to others.

Quote from: Glazer;454524GMing has a deep-seated appeal for people that want to be in control. Unfortunately, although they may be great GMs working  on their own, they  are simply not cut out to be a GM as part of a group. In fact, they see 'group GMing' as a threat, and end up, probably unconsciously, doing whatever they can to undermine it.

In my own experience, control freaks make very poor GMs.