𝐋𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐞 - Reduce prep time and improve your games with this monthly D&D magazine ▶▶ www.patreon.com/thedmlair 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐌 𝐋𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐞 - Get back issues of Lair Magazine, map packs, 5e adventures, and other DM resources ▶▶ the-dm-lair.myshopify.com/
Cogming is really simple. It is where you have one gm (journeyman) trainibg a second gm (apprentice) exposing the apprentice to what it looks like behind the screen and allowing the journeyman to teach the apprentice positive practices, tips, and tricks and giving them exposure to things like running monsters, npcs, map management, and how to handle traps and players in a slow manageable yet structured pace. This allows for the apprentice overtime to make more and more decisions but having the journeyman there to step in as needed to correct any mistakes as necessary so that the group doesnt dissolve or players go home angry, confused, or flustrated. Eventually the journeyman stops codming allowing for the apprentive to run their own game. This structure helps releave pressure, anxiety, and worry on the apprentice and doesnt give them too much power roo early so that they do not make a huge mistake that ruins the party.
I prefer 6 players because that handles missing players, being able to handle losing 2 players and go to 4 is good, but if you have 4 and you go to 2 players, no I'm not running that.
Matt Colville uses side plots to "interrupt" difficult decision making in a large group. When the party has the ideas laid out and are being indecisive, make a side plot interrupt them. It gives them a break from the problem at hand and when they come back they are refreshed and ready to move things along.
I was in a game with a co DM who did the combat rolls, track hp, ac etc while the DM focused on description and narrative for the battles and could focus on tell players what to roll for doing non combat actions ( swing on chandeliers. Etc...)
My DM sadly explains EVERY interaction in combat... Even if I do it.. "I swing and deal a slash, which suddenly bursts in holy might" And then he gives a description as well... Everytime... It slows EVERYTHING down... Everything... Spice, cheese, etc sometimes is nice... Too much and it's awful
As a co GM I honestly think it is the main way of running larger groups. I tend to run merchant interactions, questions, setting up turns, running through lists, and so on and it works great.
that must be an awful role for someone doing the numeric staff and missing out on the fun parts of DMing. Wouldn't it be better to use some nice app or something?
@@auxilius04 just roll the dice and hurry up :v You'd be surprised how quick combat is when each player already knows what they want to do on their turn
Not ready for 10 barbarians..... but Luke would feel at home with 20 fat cats. Also a round of applause for fat cat dutifully making to every skit since he got back to the table.
My first official time DMing I had 9 new players who have never played before. I premade their characters and a contained setting. I split the party into two teams to give each team a battle while the other half takes a break for a fetch quest. They rejoined for the final battle and had a blast :)
Yo i am doing the same thing except its bassically a special session where more people join us. I was worried about doing this but this comment gave me some confidence in it
Non-combat discussions are time for me to make notes, flesh out future content, or at the very least stretch out the content I have created to more sessions. Let those player roleplay to their hearts' content (out of combat), until and unless other players start to lose interest.
RE: Gamemaster Co-DM / Multiple DM's I've had a couple campaigns where we did different things to help distribute DM duties. The first was what we called a Realms campaign. Since most of us were DM's, each of us took a section of the world to flesh out as a campaign area. As the characters travelled the world and moved from region to region, we would hand off DM duties from DM to DM ... and of course there was a prophesy that drove us from place to place. Whoever's realm we entered that DM's character would have to leave and go on a solo adventure that someone else would run ... which was great for really spotlighting that character. Alternately, you can just let the character stay in the group and have them take a back seat. Another was more of a co-GM type situation. My friend was running a Shadowrun campaign and we were using Roll20 as the VTT. The plan was that he would send me information about potential locations for his story and I would flesh out maps, we could bounce ideas back and forth for different elements, then at the table, I could help run the combats and look up rules so it didn't slow things down as much. Theoretically, I could also run a subset if the party split up, which is common in Shadowrun with the Astral plane and the Matrix. It started out pretty good, but over time he was less communicative, and I just wound up making a character and playing. I still think it's a valid idea because different DM's are better at different things. I love drawing maps and designing combat encounters, but I'm not necessarily the best at coming up with the stories that tie it all together.
One of my best tools for my large party is a simple in-character FB chat. A lot of my group are from an old text RP background and that's been a way to keep people engaged and playing both when they're off-screen (aka our stealthy folks went off to scout) and between sessions.
The advantage with groups of 6-8 is that if 1 or 2 miss, you can still play. Our Pathfinder group is 6 players and if we end up with 3 players, we usually play a 1-shot or alternate campaign.
1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 are stuff i think are equally important for smaller groups 4, 5, 6 are usually also good for smaller games The issue i have with larger games is more that a large group of people just doesn't stay focused, people start talking to each other etc I've seen co-DMs used for 2 things. First is if a large party wants to split up, then each DM can take one group. This also lets you design encounters where the party HAS to split up. The other is as an assistant to help with bookkeeping to help keep the game flowing faster, ie. if the DM gets asked a question they do not know the answer on the top of their head, the co-DM can look it up while the initial DM continues with other players.
The way I usually run number three, is that those two characters go, and return with information about what they found. It allows those players to feel like they are helping, by scouting, and it keeps the party together.
6:20 What I tend to do, is assume they are all following, unless someone says otherwise, or a plan of splitting-up and/or going in one at a time was discussed. ... Sometimes some of the player characters will scout ahead, while others will stay behind, but only by one room at a time.
Followed shortly after with the greatest fight between E. Honda and Zangieff in a mini city scape with Godzilla sound effects. I loved that movie. So terrible it's great!
I’ve co-DM’d before. But not for a large group, but to train a new DM. Main DM ran the adventure, I helped with logistics (Roll20 prep and encounter tuning). It was also good for the DM to have a backup for feedback between sessions. And a player to help guide the other players from the inside to minimize DM disrupting campaign decisions.
I have 6 players in my weekly 5E homebrew group. Each of them has their own character story/mystery/quest to work on, and between them they have to decide on a general course of action while the world does 'world things' in the background. They don't always all show up. We still play. Their characters are just doing stuff in the background. The rogue is doing shady stuff, the wizard is doing research, etc. If they want to split the party, they usually wait until they're in town. They've discovered that their friendly DM has ZERO problems killing them if they split up in a dungeon or mid-fight.
I played in a group of about ten players back in college before starting my own group. It took forever to complete a round of combat, and the DM loved massive combats that ended up taking hours.
10 players?! I have 4 consistent players in my game and every now and then one of the player’s wife will join. She is so chaotic and derails everything, but not in a good way. I couldn’t imagine 10 players to guide and story tell.
Thank you for this! I just committed to a 7 player group... at least for the next 5 months tops, a lot of this is going to be very useful to me and keeping game play going. The info about decision making and spotlighting players was particularly useful, adding diplomacy should be a great help, and I know I have some players louder than others to address :)
Luke: "You're here watching this video because you want help running large groups, right?" Me: "What, you mean people don't watch these just because they enjoy Luke's content?" :3
I've been DM'ing for about 40 years now, and as far as the "Running a big party" thing goes my best advice is to do whatever is in your power to avoid it. I like a group of about 5 or maybe 6 tops. I had so many people wanting to join the new campaign I'm running that I had to split it in two, so there will be a Table Top group of five (maybe 6 as one player wants to be in both...) and a VTT team of 5 (which MAY grow... but I'm capping it at 6.). I've had to split the initial content and write a whole new main arc so they don't cross over, but events from each group's adventures will impact each other... and will lead to the same conclusion. (I've yet to figure out how the "Grand Finale" is going to work... but that's waaay down the road and I'll keep kicking that can for as long as possible.) I've run multiple games at the same time before, but never in the same campaign. Usually I would run different game systems to avoid confusion in MY head... But honestly... I would rather do anything other than run a game with about 10 people at the table. Been there, done that... don't want to do it again. I've never found a way to get good balance across the player involvement ratio. Unless you land the end of every session where the players are back home, the chances of someone not making it to the next session and you having to carry PC actions for absent players increases almost exponentially, which leads to people coming back the next session angry at what their character did or did not do... small groups keeps this crap less frequent. If you do choose to try it, as Luke points out, DO NOT SPLIT the party... unless you have agreed that the split will occur in real time too, and each half of the split gets their own game session. But no... otherwise.. it creates FAR more problems than it solves. However you try to run a big group... Good luck to anyone who tries it.
Benefits of online gaming, especially Play-By-Post. Larger groups are not necessarily easier to manage, but if your players are active enough (or can be prompted by you enough), player involvement tends to balance itself. Or maybe I just have a good group. Either way. :)
This is a pretty great and relevant video. My boyfriend just started storytelling RotFM with a large group (7 players 8 characters) where we have to agree on dates months ahead. Even then, some people have to cancel last minute, understandably. So far, what we have then done, is splitting the party - kind of. Basically, we have pickup sessions with those interested and could not attend and do a side-quest which lasts the time the party has advanced. This way, the players get to play while also explaining away where their characters were while they themselves were absent. So far, so effective. These are new players, mind you, and they are very invested in the game, hence us figuring out this solution.
I was part of a campaign that sat between 16-22 players every Saturday night, it was a blast, but a few take aways: the most important thing was setting the expectations with the players about the large group and what that means during table play. this was backed up with a running discord throughout the week, which was mostly self governed RP, the DM would pop in every so often and answer questions and make sure things (like the shopping or character building questions were answered) prior to game play. as for splitting the party being more work, I agree, however if you designate a few co-dm's like we did, this breaks a large party down into two (or more) manageable groups, the co DM's are given only what they need so the experience isn't ruined for them either. Combat is where we struggled, and that's mostly the only time we broke the party down. sometimes it made for more dynamic combat, when the party fights the same battle on two fronts, if the other needed help, a player would move on their turn to the other group and pick up their initiative with them. bottom line is if the players are willing and patient, it can work. and it can be fun.
the co-dm was given the baddy stats and asked to run the combat portion only. they were always proven non-metagamers and allowed to run a turn for their own pc's as well. the two at our table were DM's that ran other games. very rarely was a co-dm privy to story line elements.
I actually did some co-DMing session for my group I usually have between 3 to 6 players at the same time in my table (6 is rare) For some sessions with a lot of exploration, mysteries and detectives things, with a lot of choices in the way to apprehend the story and small fights (less than 30minutes), I usually take a co-DM. When the party split, we each take a group, after discussing a few minutes about the time we allow before merging the party again, and the types of event that could affect the other group. When the party don't split, a DM runs a few scenes, and the other tracks background things (numbers, rolls, inventory, NPC's decisions, etc...), and we alternate. Every time it goes very well, and leads to interesting and surprising stories, but I advise to do it with a person you know well, and have designed the session with you (or at least being highly pitched).
I have an average sized group who reeeeally like to slow things down and hack every decision down into long discussions that take all game time. Thx for providing tips on how to nip this issue!
So, I can explain Co-Dming for you since I've done this on more than a few occasions. My latest example is my current table where we have two different DMs that rotate games. However while a "player" in the other game, I Co-DMed, and vice versa. Basically a Co-DM is a "Player" at the table with enough experience to DM a game themselves, and often are, that assists the DM with things like answering mechanical questions from other players, helping to balance encounters and maintain plot continuity and flow. In my last situation where I was a Co-DM, myself and the other DM noticed that we were both stronger in different aspects of the game. I was much better at encounter balancing and plot driving, where as the other DM was more encyclopedic in his knowledge of the rules as written. Effectively when ' I ' was DM, the other guy would answer questions posed by players and occasionally I would lean on him to drive a plot point for the party(providing him extra information necessary for him to guide the group) without ruining the plot. When we rotated campaigns and HE was the DM, I would often be given general numbers for an encounter(i.e. number of enemies, average hp/ac/spells/etc) to spitball the math and provide feedback that as it is it will likely take x rounds and how to shift for what he wants; without being told anything about the encounter that would ruin the plot. I would also work with him as the main Driver to make sure the party at least mostly kept on track by informing him ahead of time what ' I ' as a player was planning on doing to give him ample time to prep(Mostly discussing long-term plot goals and answering the occasional "What would you all do in x situation"). We would also keep track of combat information for each other so nothing was missed/skipped on accident(such as initiative, status affects, etc.) to help with the flow of combat. The purpose is when you have a DM that has a time constraint that makes prepping consistently an issue. Not only did both myself and the other DM act as "Co-Dms" for each other, but we also rotated campaigns every 4-6 months. This meant that while we would BOTH normally not have time to properly DM, we could easily fill the 8-12 sessions(we run weekly) as we had several months for preliminary prep and active assistance during "our time" for DMing. This is especially helpful when you also have a large number of newer players that are going to be constantly asking small things or looking for feedback on options/decisions. Just having that second person you trust to be able to answer those questions while you're referencing something else, narrating something for another player, or just answering anothee questions can be a Godsend. The trick here is to know how to get feedback without spoiling the plot for the Co-Dm. Afterall, it sucks to be a player and know EXACTLY what is going on in a game. However this can be a pain in the ass and really only works if both DMs know how the other works and are both willing AND able to Co-DM effectively.
I've seen a few games where large parties have been split successfully, but it does rely on the idea that your players should enjoy watching the game almost as much as they enjoy participating in it. That's one reason why playing with people who have some acting / improv experience works *so well* - these kinds of players understand when it's their turn to take the stage or when it's their turn to sit back and enjoy a scene being played out by their peers. But you're right, it does then put additional work on the DM to act as the director, carefully editing the interweaving storylines. When I've done this before, my rule of thumb was to try to avoid letting scenes run over half an hour - that's when I've found other players start to feel short-changed.
Regarding splitting the group, there's a counter-argument. (also, first off, splitting the party doesn't nessessarily mean splitting them off in different locations... they can be in different rooms of the same general area). Because you're all together doesn't mean you're all engaged. In a single group the same players will always wrestle for the spotlight. If you physically separate the characters but keep all the players engaged in the meta narrative at the table , then it actually guarantees that each group gets their moment. It actually reinforces the same rule you mentioned earlier about needing to make sure every player gets their voice heard and agency rewarded, except they're sure to have their turn in the spotlight, and so will pay more attention in general. Sure, bring them together for the combat, but while doing the investigation or whatever they can be in adjacent rooms. Seth Skorkowsky has a great video on how to handle pacing and rapid cliffhangers for split parties.
1:50 Nice BG nod to the D&D Coloring Album, with art by the late, great Greg Irons =) And the only time I've seen a Co-DM situation work was because the scenario was specifically designed for two groups to begin separately and come together at the end. It was R. Talsorian's Teenagers From Outer Space, so it didn't matter if things got chaotic!
I would also recommend that the DM for a large group run a pretty straightforward type of game like a megadungeon or some other hack-and-slash sort of affair. It's going to be really hard to handle complicated roleplaying and intrigue with so many people (unless the group really loves heists), so point them at some obvious bad guys and let them get to work.
On the issue of Co-DM's: I am a new DM running a game for a 6 player group. My friend who originally got me into D&D has been co-dming while also PC'ing the game. Basically the role he has is to look up niche rules while I move on narratively. For example: 2 players had a sleep spell but one was a cantrip and one required a level 1 spell slot. The question came up if the cantrip user got the same number of D6's to roll as the spell user. Off the top of my head I didn't know if there was a difference, but either way he'd rolled high enough to put the desired target to sleep whether or not you took the two highest rolls away so I continued running the encounter while my co-DM looked up the spell in the player handbook for reference (There is no difference to how many D6's you get whether it's a spell or cantrip.) If I already know the answer then obviously there's no need for it but I've found it helps to have someone dedicated to looking up super specific information for you so everyone gets to shoot their shot while the player in question doesn't feel like they're being cheated out of anything. By the way, this is the only responsibility he has as a Co-DM. He doesn't run encounters or know anything more about the plot than any other player. He also offered to do it because things were getting a little bogged down at first and nobody likes to waste time.
That's Not What I'd see as a Co-DM but more just giving a player the DM role of Rule Checker. To me, co DMing more comes into play in adventure or session writing. Specifically two rolls 1. Combat and Mechanical progression (Knowing what monsters to use and what items to give) and 2. Story and World building. It could also be used in play as well. One DM Runs Combat if they are really good at it. Then one goes to the story telling. Advantage for Big Groups. Combat DM can give Story DM simple minions and monsters to run and they just talk about mob objectives between each other. And Story DM gives key knowledge points of an NPC to Combat DM if the players split the group to ask questions around town. At a single table that last one may get loud, but in a discord server or large gaming shop it can work. There is also Westmarch Games, Head DM runs world Story. Table DM's run the missions and quests. but Westmarches are their own thing.
I have a friend who runs a large game with a co-DM, I don't know all the things he does as co-dm but it seems he mostly helps handle a lot of the busy work of DMings. Helps look up rules (its a pathfinder game), helps run combat by controlling some of the monsters, runs certain NPCs, occasionally acts like a lil ball of chaos, and occasionally helps plan things out for session.
I actually have done the co-DM work with the larger group where there was a fairly even split for what the group wanted to do. I took over for one group while the normal DM did the larger and it worked out pretty well. It's not something I would recommend for anything larger than a subplot but it does work well when the group is separated for whatever reason.
A good use of co-DMs is when you're running two campaigns that're part of the same story, but are two sides of the coin. I.E. if you are running a story where there are two groups working against each other to get the same end goal (item, killing the BBEG, etc.)
I run a large group with 9 characters. I can count on one hand the times all 9 were on the board. Definitely play with whomever shows up. We have this fiction that behind the party several miles, days, whatevs, is a small wagon train where the spare mounts, food, whatever flotsam is stored. Any character not at the table is in the wagon train defending/scouting/lollygagging, who cares. I also enforce a plan your action before your turn rule. If a player is not ready in 30 seconds or so on their turn, they hold their action until the end of the round.
I've never tried a co DM. However, I could see it working based on these guidelines: 1. Both DMs collaborate on adventure design; similar to novels written by multiple authors 2. 1 DM managers mechanics and referee calls, while the other manages NPCs; maybe they switch roles at times 3. Where visual aids are used (e.g. miniatures, maps, ect), one DM handles descriptions while the other handles the aids. Again roles might be switched at times.
Actually had a situation where my party started split, and it actually worked out. And yeah, it felt like running 3 different games at the start. Of course it was a pain, but it gave everyone some time to interact with the environment, and in a way, introduce what type of characters they were to the group. I usually went 20-25mins per interaction, then stopped at a break point to move to the next group. Thankfully, they were all at the same carnival, (we were playing Wild beyond the witchlight), so there was very little additional prep needed on my end since I had the carnival prepped already
I am running a 5 to 8 player campaign, our house rule is if you can’t make it you will be included in our lore, there’s a shifting reason why people are absent, with their personal quests or too hungover to leave the tavern. Everyone’s happy with it. I have a co Dm at the table who’s sole job is to help me track initiative, it’s my weakest point as a DM especially when players themselves forget to track numbers, so I myself have asked that they help me. It works really well! He also does things like helps explain game mechanics and explain spell radius and stuff like that.
I also have a rule called fast combat, which is if you are taking too long for your turn, and don’t know what to do you can take a ready action and skip, and by doing so I will then defer back to that person at a time I recognise and tell them, “now is your best chance for dealing damage” and so on, because by this point they are salivating for some action, I think that works well too.
Co-DM story time: a friend and I did this once on his birthday. We'd be 11 people but wanted to play an RPG (not DnD but the same principles apply). He'd prepared the overall story, that would inevitably split the party. We both prepared 3 encounters each that we'd run simultaneously with one half of the group each and he'd run the finale alone. We tried our best to make both sets of encounters last equally long and surprisingly (through luck, mostly) it worked out! We did not play in separate rooms but once the party was split everyone swapped places so that one group would be on each end of the table. It was a lot of fun but i wouldn't do it again, because while this time it worked, I see so many ways it could and likely would go wrong.
Wait, people are here to learn how to run large groups? I'm here to prove to the algorithm that Luke doesn't suck, to peruse the bookshelf behind Luke, and to get the occasional cat cameo. Oh, and the skits! Definitely I am here for the skits.
I played in a game with a main DM and a co-DM. The co-DM helped come up with content and acted as a rules resource when requested, as well as tracked initiative in combat. I heard of co-DMs sometimes running an adventure to give the main DM a break as well. I'm not a fan of it after experiencing it, but to each their own.
Currently running a game of (mostly new) 9 players and ironically one of best benefits was me being selective in who played. Everyone in my group is part of a close circle of friends who during the course of the pandemic, have done weekly Zoom hangouts to chat and play games like Mario Kart. The result is that we kind already trained each other on paying attention to quiet folks who were online, with the added benefit of a weekly dedicated chat time meant drastic reductions in pre-game chit-chat because we're already caught up with each other's lives (that and I start our Zoom call 30-60 minutes before game time, either to allow for chit-chat or to talk level up, story, and mechanics as optional "pregame" time).
I've also found sand timers can be helpful with decision making. Don't say anything. Just while they're arguing, slowly bring up the timer and tip it over to start it so they see. Use the time to come up with something. An NPC comes running up with useful info/hook. Bounty hunters attack and their contract provides a clue towards one of the decisions. The BBEG shows up and kidnaps a random NPC in view. Have fun with it.
If you want to see co-DMs, watch the D4 livestream or youtube videos. They are up to 100+ episodes and IMO have been very successful. There aren't too many livestreams I can enjoy. For one reason or another this is one of them. The challenge of co-DM likely is finding a good fit. To add, long ago, a friend of mine and I co-DMed several sessions, but ultimately each of us missed being a player so we split the groups into 2 games so each of us could play in one.
What would you recommend for combat? More enemies? Or just more health for a few targets? Maybe make the terrain more challenging to keep them from zerging targets one by one?
I have actually CO-Dmed once. We have a group of 12 total. And I discussed eith a friend to split them up. Inwould then run 5, and he hould run 5 people. The way we worked is we made an overarching plot together. And then made some enemies they might encounter in the world. (It was a homebrew setting, about 3 nations on an island fighting each other) We set my group in one of the nations, and the other group in the other one. From there both parties played very similar mission, just with creatures from the other party its nation. (Think of a general heist, an assasination, a shipping cargo etc missions) The ending was also fun, both groups found each other (as we ran them with the same time) and discovered the third nation was up to something. Thus they bonded together in the final session to defeat the boss. It was very thrilling and super satisfying. It was also very nice to work together with someone on a story. The plot was created way faster and so were encounters. We only had to tweak the combats a bit to match the setting in the other nation. But we bad a shared google folder with als the info so it worked fine (:
So in that case it was working with another DM to create the plot line and then running to separate groups basically. But the very end the groups came together and played a little bit together. That about right?
@@theDMLair yes, so we ran separate groups in the same world. So in some cases one group could affect the other by doing a mission succefull or not. For example one group failed to destroy a ship, and some sessions later the other group used that ship to do a mission on their own. If the first group would have been succesfull, the second one would have needed to find another way of completing their mission. The best part about this is that the entire group is now (after the campaign) talking and realizing what both groups did in the world. It is so fun to see them to be mind blown and start to see te similarities and connections between the two “sub” campaigns.
My friend actually co-dm'd a game and they divided the responsibilities into combat and exploration for one dm and social for the other. In the end it didn't work out too well and the group decided it would be better to just have one dm so there wouldn't be conflicting ideas or cliffhanger plot hooks. But the whole thing was further complicated because both dm's were trying to run active hirelings that joined the players on their explorations and combats. I think if you are going to have a co-dm you might as well just split the party into 2 groups and have each dm run a group.
Actually have a story from last week that attests to splitting the party slows combat. My group of 7-10 players, including an archlich with amnesia and a half vampire, woke up to realize the town they camped in was the headquarters for an order of anti-defilers of the natural order paladins. The escape scene i planned out turned into a three group combat at different parts of town when the ranger realized he forgot his mount and ran back all alone. Spent all night narrating three groups doing combat with clusters of paladins in different areas of town trying to save the ranger and secure his exit from the city......that ranger was our first death this campaign.
I was invited to DM a pvp Project. There was going to be 4 squads (2 good-aligned and 2 evil). There would be an campaign for each squad. until it finally time to have them fight each other. I agreed to DM one of the evil campaigns. We had 3 DMs and were struggling to find a 4th DM, so I volunteered the 2nd evil campaign (I had planned for the original campaign to take place in Neverwinter and figured to do the same for the 2nd). I created the "BBEG" and a handler for the evil squads. Then one of the good squad DMs had to drop out (he was in control of the Discord and signed ownership to me), so I stepped up to become the DM for that good squad. Same campaign, just changed it, so their objective would be to oppose the evil squad indirectly. The BBEG for the evil has become the handlers for the good squad and the evil handler is now the BBEG for the good squad. Then the last DM had to drop out, and I was going to step up once more, so everyone would still be able to play (For a lot of them, this was their first time playing and I wanted their experience to be a positive one). Luckily, one of the players for the Good squad volunteered to DM the 2nd good squad, and I would be a player for that squad (in case the DM had any questions for me). I told him the basic of my plan for the campaign, but didn't tell him all of it, so he had room to run his campaign. The campaigns took place in Neverwinter. Any time the squads saw each other (usually from the same side) it was a short cameo that sometimes the players did all on their own. The campaign went better than I had hoped. That DM was my Co-DM. They get some of my plans but not the whole scheme of it. The evil squads were working for a follower of Orcus (but Orcus was running under an alias so as not to spoil the surprise). 10/10 I would do it again or something similar. tldr: Co-DM helps with a campaign, but they don't know the whole story of what's to come or going to happen.
Co-DM = Monster Wrangler. One other player dedicated to assisting in the opponent/NPC attack's throughout the combat initiative. Having someone else familiarize themselves with all of the combat capabilities and then respond to the players attacks in character. It takes coordination and trust but adds an amazing element to the game. I do suggest getting every players buy-in ahead of time. It does introduce a deadlier component to combat, but I have been doing this, successfully for 5 years now, with a group of ten players. It increases suspense, captures everyone's attention at the table, and does move at an exciting fast pace. It is one thing for ten players attacking the creatures being run by a DM who is a Fan of the characters. They are relaxed and just waiting for their turn. It is another thing entirely for 9 players to face off against the DM and one of their own rank whom has a desire to roleplay their monster true to the conditions. Now, the characters have some real threats looming, they are anxious and cant wait to experience the next turn even if it is not their own. Last note: the co-DM also caries out book duties such as looking up any disputed rule, spell definition, or other clarifying information needed during session. 10 out of 10, I would recommend, especially if you have another player who might be willing to try their hand at learning what it is like behind the curtain. I have trained three new DM's this way. and then played as their co-DM in their campaigns. No regrets. I Have been a DM sense 1983. Currently I have two campaigns. One that has been ongoing for the last 5 years and the other a West-March drop-in at the local game store were I routinely have 8 - 10 random players.
One other tip to pass on. Try this for keeping an exciting pace during a one evening one shot session or short drop-in side quest. Do a Hot Start outside of the location. (Dungeon/keep). Have the players roll their initiative before the game starts. Now, never drop out of the turn sequence. Run the entire session turn by turn round by round. Keep each turn to a reasonable time limit. Have the characters roleplay their actions or give informative details not just " I swing my sword. or, I sneak down the hall". Rather, " Brack lashes out toward the orc with his great club". or "Roland presses his back to the shadowed wall and steps quietly toward the far entrance". Keep your descriptions just as flavorful but just as short. Press your players through the entire adventure at a round by round SWAT pace from start to finish. I routinely do this with a five encounter session for six to eight players in three and a half to four hours. The caveat is that you have to be extremely familiar with the adventure ahead of time.
me and a friend were dming together(i was the codm and this was a pokemon game so it kinda made it easier) i ran shops and downtime activites as well as random pokemon encounters cuz we had a few each game. as well as run some of the gyms and npc's. basically its just divide and conquer and you always discuss before doing stuff I ran certain npc's and ran certain things going on and I had input on ideas on where we should do with story elements. we also had this inspiration roll thing that i did where they would roll a d20 with a specific name and i would roll a d20 and tell them no(this was a discord game)
Had a 2 and a half years campaign with a party of 12 players... I think we had like 5 sessions total where everyone was present, and that's including session 0, the first session and the finale
For decision making, if the group can't decide within a few minutes, I have a Charisma show down. Persuasion rolls and whoever rolls highest convinces the group
About decision making, I tell them to roll a die. When the die falls, they say "Nope, we'll use the other option." When die is falling everyone already knows what they want, and actually by godly powers, almost no-one ever has taken the option the die is showing.
Concerning co-DMing, I had such an experince as a player. We had 8 PCs and 2 guys trying to simultaneously DM for us. It quickly became two separate games at one table. The PCs met only in combat and - what a surprise! - never knew what the other half of the group had been planning the whole time. The DMs seemed to get confused quickly as well. A terrible experience to tell the truth.
I run 11 players and I always try to make sure everyone has a chance to speak in noncombat. Pushing the decision making is tough, I use an egg timer to get them to decide.
@@RIVERSRPGChannel that isn't really the point.... I mean more just the number of people to split time up. Assuming a 4 hour game, and no actual DM narration... that's still what, around about 20 minutes for each person? With 4 players it would be an hour each and with 8 it would be 30 minutes... unless you run 12 hour sessions that seems like an incredibly small amount of time for each person to shine. Tis one of the reason the ideal party size it typically around 4-6 or so. Gives each player time to rp/engage and still have some room for actual stuff to happen. I can't imagine a 4 hour game where I have less than 20 minutes to talk without hogging the time from others...and that is under unrealistic circumstances. Honestly your players really only likely get like 5-10 minutes worth of actual rp/content per 4 hour session given any conversations with npcs are often at BEST 50/50 with the dm...any questions about what they would know about x is the same... that just seems like a huge disservice to the players at that point.
@@unshackledjester I see what you’re saying but we usually run 6 hours and everyone gets a turn and they all get a game session to shine. I would prefer a smaller group but no one wants to leave and they all have fun.
Hello Mr DM, Sir. Thank you as always for the video and the tipps. Google please thake this as an offer to please the algorithm. I GMed a game with two GMs over three sessions once. It worked very well but only because we know each other and we planned out things together. I would not say this is something for everybody. Also I think in larger groups it can be beneficial to split the party. But it depends on what kind of players you have sitting around the table.
7 players plus myself; I have a player run initiative for me, then other players run the mechanics of npc's (if they're present) after I declare their action (for example, player Bob is running his character, as well as Gus the npc. On Gus's turn, "Bob, Gus will move here, cast CLW on Chonk." Then they handle the rest for me. One of my players is taking the helm for her first time as a DM; I'll be running initiative for her, as well as track rounds, durations, etc., so she can focus on game decisions.
Totally agree don't split the party as a big group. I made the mistake of doing four separate combat encounters with 17? Players. It was intense on my end an lots of waiting for the players. Epic session but it nearly killed me.
I do agree that smaller groups do tend to be more fun. Say 5 or 6 is best. I do apricate to help with large groups since, even though I prefer smaller groups, I am running a group of 12 players. ^ new players and 6 experienced players. That grouping has worked out well.
CO(Poly) DM Setup: Setting: Sandbox, easily referenced world such as Faerun Generate antagonists through rolls, one villian per GM. Anybody who wants to GM sets up a mission, quest, or dungeon. GMs host their quest, employ villain how they see fit, their PC stays at home base. When quest is complete, new GM starts their quest, old GM picks up their PC. Loot/XP is capped via either/both RAW loot/xp tables and/or prearranged tables. Loot/XP is distributed at GM discretion, if they accidentally pass the caps they make it up with next game. Worried about meta? Randomization helps cut it down but you can also require GMs utilize divination in their characters if need be. Requires Diplomacy and Discretion. PROS: GMs can get more time to prep things in between their quests and don't have to scramble when unprepared. Can still play if GM cannot attend. Players and GMs both get to witness and learn different GM styles. Breaks GM/Player tension so that GM is not always out to get the players. CONS: Doesn't work for GMs who need power and control, especially over rule mechanics. Requires fairly strict adherence to RAW, especially in PC character design. Some players can be bad GMs, and some GMs can be bad players.
I know the pain, I used to have a hard time finding anyone to play, now my group is always atleat 6 and more want to join, once a group goes past 6 it gets hard to juggle. Best advice is know your players and know what they enjoy in a game and keep everyone involved as much as possible.
Heard about Co-DMs and looked into it, but learned it is a very weird setup where if not defined, both the Main DM and the Co-DM are essentially options for the players to pick favorites. The main reason that there is only one DM is for integrity and consistency, so clearly having two or more DMs will risk undue integrity damages such as having mixed answers and inconsistent lore pieces. There was a time I was an unwitting Co-DM (emphasis on the word "unwitting") as a method of learning to DM from one who claimed to have 29 years of experience; the method did not work because not only I did not understand the method in the madness, I did not get to put anything into practice since I'm still a player. What I can say about Co-DMs, Luke? They are +1's to existing issues that are already there unless they are running their own table and agreed to meet up regularly to keep the main DM and other Co-DMs aware about what is going on. Failing that will also spell the failure of the Main DM in the eyes of the players... Not Good At All!
Imagine the day when the Rogue becomes the DM to run a campaign and just spams units at the party that sneak up on the party with sneak attacks constantly for that stabby stab. Lmao
@@m0rtez713 Good, it means you're doing the shit players do to the DM all the time. ♫ Anything the Players can do, I can do better. For I am the Dungeon Master and can do everything better than you. ♫
I see a coDM two different ways. One way is that one DM is conversing with another DM to help them with their campaign and only one runs the campaign at the table. The other way is one DM is playing in PCs to help with NPC to NPC dialogue.
Well I’ve been a DM for 1 year and have started my first sourcebook Rime of the FrostMaiden, before that it was a homebrew to let everyone get a feel for the game type of a thing.. it went okay but i feel we need a more structured storyline.. my group of 6 players is truely a challenge for me being inexperienced with D&D as a whole. This video and many others has been a huge helper for me and I appreciate the work that goes into them. Majority of my group know how to play but a few of them don’t really look into their characters to me it feels like they chose them just to be apart of the group and to hangout.. is there something i can do to try get them more involved? Like interested in what they’re doing?. I have asked them individually if they want to even play, but no real answers on that.
Have a 6 player game to run, lucked out seeing this was a new video. Also my first campaign, which is also being homebrewed. I’ve made questionable choices to end up here
I have never done co-DM games. I did once (and ONLY once) run a game with tag-in DMs. We were playing for a little over three days straight. The other DM and I would tag out to sleep, as would players. We were young, dumb, caffeinated, and without any real responsibilities and after that marathon session we all hated D&D for a couple of weeks and swore to never do that again.
I’m really nervous because I’m a new DM who’s hosting a game of Strahd with my friends (most who haven’t played D&D, but I’ve gotten about 6 months of experience) with 9 players. I don’t know how to introduce them to the campaign in a way that’ll have them integrated by the end of session 1 (I decided to skip the Death House because I feel it doesn’t offer much narratively)
I've learnt that sometimes is better playing only with those that are really invested in the game. Is better for your friendship (if you are friends) and your mental health. I was feeling like you last year, then I kicked them and now we are all happy.
Co-DMing is something that kinda grew out of an unfortunate side effect of expected group size for older D&D. Due to how weak and niche player characters was in TSR D&D you would see people grouping up with large numbers of players to cover more ground. The system even had a way to hire retainers if you don't have enough players, and many early modules would have possible retainers listed in them for that matter. Early modules assumed large groups. They won't say it on the cover, but inside it will usually give on average 6 or 8 players recommended. Even the art in the book reflects that. Quest for the Heartstone shows six heroes around the table getting their quest. So what Co-DMing is is either a secretary for the DM or a campaign being ran by 2+ DMs. For the first case the Co-DM is helping keep track of stuff and helping keep the game flowing. Sometimes they are given an npc to play as in an encounter with multiple NPCs. They might even have a hand in content creation for the game. However, one person is basically the head Umpire who call the shots while to others watch and maintain the action at other spots in the game. The Co-DM here does a lot of watching and rules maintaining, and you can imagine how this is not really that fun for everyone. The other way a Co-DM can be is if 2 or more DMs effectively run a campaign. They either take turns running a campaign or they write different parts of the campaign. This works best if the campaign world is an established one, either in print or homemade. So the players might be in town with one DM and when they are in the dungeon they are with the other DM. This type of Co-Dming is a good way to keep things in the dark for one DM. For example, if a character has some secret, one DM can know it while the other does not. The big problem with either method of Co-DMing is the fact everyone DMs differently. I would recommend against it in the long run.
If I end up with lots of players I usually do a PvP one shot. Rather than having me antagonise them they antagonise each other. This isn’t a battle royale situation, I did one where an elven prince and his retinue arrived at the dwarven halls to congratulate the dwarven king of his ascension. But they forget to bring the customary gift. Complicated intrigue all sprawled out from there with barely an NPC and not a monster in sight.
Same thing, I thought I'd try my hand at DMing with a party of 3-4 and sent a LFP on a group chat of friends, and I have seven (possibly eight) players now.
Personally, I try to take advantage of indecision time to prep the next encounter. Half of my campaign's are figured out while the players are arguing about something miniscule.
The first campaign I’ve ever run has eight players and I’m dying because it’s during school hours so we only really have a 45 minute session each day we do one of the sessions.
I've trialled using "talk tokens" for combat. Everybody gets a token to throw in if they want to offer advice, like shouting across the melee. Has to be short and pithy.
@@Lobsterwithinternet Not really, unless you consider PCs speaking to each other an action (and if you do that's cool). One of the main issues slowing down our game is meta strategising though, with people offering or asking for advice. I don't like to shut it down completely as the players enjoy it and the game is supposed to be fun, but it can really slow the game down in a large group. Besides if you read team based comics like the x-men they're always shouting to suggestions to each other, and I wanted to emulate that team dynamic. This way they can shout something like "cast this" or "I need some help!" (Or "fastball special") to each other without everything becoming a conversation.
A perfect way to keep games moving every single time someone from the group can't make it is just have them catch a cold or the flu. It's just golden. 😂
I'm curious, if you were to have 10 players and split it into 2 groups, what are the merits for having the two campaigns compliment each other so that the players could slot into the other group if they can't make it on one particular day or something? Doesn't have to be fancy, but just every now and then they hear of things that the other band of travellers have been up to or something, and would potentially mean that if one group doesn't take up a plot thread, it could easily be dropped right into the other group. Is there any merit to this? I've got no idea
![Chino Pacas - Smith (ft. Junior H & Fuerza Regida) [Video Visualizador Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BVK6k56X30Y/mqdefault.jpg)
𝐋𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐞 - Reduce prep time and improve your games with this monthly D&D magazine ▶▶ www.patreon.com/thedmlair
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐌 𝐋𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐞 - Get back issues of Lair Magazine, map packs, 5e adventures, and other DM resources ▶▶ the-dm-lair.myshopify.com/
Cogming is really simple. It is where you have one gm (journeyman) trainibg a second gm (apprentice) exposing the apprentice to what it looks like behind the screen and allowing the journeyman to teach the apprentice positive practices, tips, and tricks and giving them exposure to things like running monsters, npcs, map management, and how to handle traps and players in a slow manageable yet structured pace. This allows for the apprentice overtime to make more and more decisions but having the journeyman there to step in as needed to correct any mistakes as necessary so that the group doesnt dissolve or players go home angry, confused, or flustrated. Eventually the journeyman stops codming allowing for the apprentive to run their own game. This structure helps releave pressure, anxiety, and worry on the apprentice and doesnt give them too much power roo early so that they do not make a huge mistake that ruins the party.
Also if the journeyman has bad practices it allows the apprentice to quickly pick up on that and correct as needed
All DMs are so sleazy they don't just play rogues... They DM.
I prefer 6 players because that handles missing players, being able to handle losing 2 players and go to 4 is good, but if you have 4 and you go to 2 players, no I'm not running that.
Matt Colville uses side plots to "interrupt" difficult decision making in a large group. When the party has the ideas laid out and are being indecisive, make a side plot interrupt them. It gives them a break from the problem at hand and when they come back they are refreshed and ready to move things along.
That only works if the situation isn't time-sensitive.
@@Lobsterwithinternet If it's time sensitive, then a progress clock that ticks up to a consequence can be a way to do it.
I was in a game with a co DM who did the combat rolls, track hp, ac etc while the DM focused on description and narrative for the battles and could focus on tell players what to roll for doing non combat actions ( swing on chandeliers. Etc...)
My DM sadly explains EVERY interaction in combat... Even if I do it.. "I swing and deal a slash, which suddenly bursts in holy might" And then he gives a description as well... Everytime...
It slows EVERYTHING down... Everything...
Spice, cheese, etc sometimes is nice... Too much and it's awful
@@elgatochurro in the novelist kind of way or the dramatic way?
As a co GM I honestly think it is the main way of running larger groups. I tend to run merchant interactions, questions, setting up turns, running through lists, and so on and it works great.
that must be an awful role for someone doing the numeric staff and missing out on the fun parts of DMing. Wouldn't it be better to use some nice app or something?
@@auxilius04 just roll the dice and hurry up :v
You'd be surprised how quick combat is when each player already knows what they want to do on their turn
Not ready for 10 barbarians..... but Luke would feel at home with 20 fat cats. Also a round of applause for fat cat dutifully making to every skit since he got back to the table.
My first official time DMing I had 9 new players who have never played before. I premade their characters and a contained setting. I split the party into two teams to give each team a battle while the other half takes a break for a fetch quest. They rejoined for the final battle and had a blast :)
Yo i am doing the same thing except its bassically a special session where more people join us. I was worried about doing this but this comment gave me some confidence in it
@@insaneexpertise it's super chaotic as a DM but you can do it!
Once a group gets up to 5 players I pull out the 5 minute sand timer for discussions and decision will be make at the 5 min mark.
Non-combat discussions are time for me to make notes, flesh out future content, or at the very least stretch out the content I have created to more sessions.
Let those player roleplay to their hearts' content (out of combat), until and unless other players start to lose interest.
RE: Gamemaster Co-DM / Multiple DM's
I've had a couple campaigns where we did different things to help distribute DM duties. The first was what we called a Realms campaign. Since most of us were DM's, each of us took a section of the world to flesh out as a campaign area. As the characters travelled the world and moved from region to region, we would hand off DM duties from DM to DM ... and of course there was a prophesy that drove us from place to place. Whoever's realm we entered that DM's character would have to leave and go on a solo adventure that someone else would run ... which was great for really spotlighting that character. Alternately, you can just let the character stay in the group and have them take a back seat.
Another was more of a co-GM type situation. My friend was running a Shadowrun campaign and we were using Roll20 as the VTT. The plan was that he would send me information about potential locations for his story and I would flesh out maps, we could bounce ideas back and forth for different elements, then at the table, I could help run the combats and look up rules so it didn't slow things down as much. Theoretically, I could also run a subset if the party split up, which is common in Shadowrun with the Astral plane and the Matrix. It started out pretty good, but over time he was less communicative, and I just wound up making a character and playing. I still think it's a valid idea because different DM's are better at different things. I love drawing maps and designing combat encounters, but I'm not necessarily the best at coming up with the stories that tie it all together.
One of my best tools for my large party is a simple in-character FB chat. A lot of my group are from an old text RP background and that's been a way to keep people engaged and playing both when they're off-screen (aka our stealthy folks went off to scout) and between sessions.
The advantage with groups of 6-8 is that if 1 or 2 miss, you can still play. Our Pathfinder group is 6 players and if we end up with 3 players, we usually play a 1-shot or alternate campaign.
1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 are stuff i think are equally important for smaller groups
4, 5, 6 are usually also good for smaller games
The issue i have with larger games is more that a large group of people just doesn't stay focused, people start talking to each other etc
I've seen co-DMs used for 2 things. First is if a large party wants to split up, then each DM can take one group. This also lets you design encounters where the party HAS to split up.
The other is as an assistant to help with bookkeeping to help keep the game flowing faster, ie. if the DM gets asked a question they do not know the answer on the top of their head, the co-DM can look it up while the initial DM continues with other players.
The barbarian yelling "are you guys getting payd?" Fitted so well in the scene! Almost as good as the plugs
"play with whoever shows up"
I'm DMing for a 4-player party & I do use this rule a lot. if at least 2 players appear, it's D&D time.
The way I usually run number three, is that those two characters go, and return with information about what they found. It allows those players to feel like they are helping, by scouting, and it keeps the party together.
6:20 What I tend to do, is assume they are all following, unless someone says otherwise, or a plan of splitting-up and/or going in one at a time was discussed.
...
Sometimes some of the player characters will scout ahead, while others will stay behind, but only by one room at a time.
That "You guys get paid ?" from the barbarian made me remember one of my favorite oneliner from the Street Fighter movie ^^
Followed shortly after with the greatest fight between E. Honda and Zangieff in a mini city scape with Godzilla sound effects. I loved that movie. So terrible it's great!
I’ve co-DM’d before. But not for a large group, but to train a new DM. Main DM ran the adventure, I helped with logistics (Roll20 prep and encounter tuning). It was also good for the DM to have a backup for feedback between sessions. And a player to help guide the other players from the inside to minimize DM disrupting campaign decisions.
I have 6 players in my weekly 5E homebrew group. Each of them has their own character story/mystery/quest to work on, and between them they have to decide on a general course of action while the world does 'world things' in the background. They don't always all show up. We still play. Their characters are just doing stuff in the background. The rogue is doing shady stuff, the wizard is doing research, etc. If they want to split the party, they usually wait until they're in town. They've discovered that their friendly DM has ZERO problems killing them if they split up in a dungeon or mid-fight.
I played in a group of about ten players back in college before starting my own group. It took forever to complete a round of combat, and the DM loved massive combats that ended up taking hours.
10 players?! I have 4 consistent players in my game and every now and then one of the player’s wife will join. She is so chaotic and derails everything, but not in a good way. I couldn’t imagine 10 players to guide and story tell.
"Back in the day" I ran large groups of 7-9, and we had combats that would last multiple sessions.
Ick.
Now, I prefer groups of three to six.
@@Tristan_Shuler I think four to six is ideal, especially if they're consistent.
Thank you for this! I just committed to a 7 player group... at least for the next 5 months tops, a lot of this is going to be very useful to me and keeping game play going. The info about decision making and spotlighting players was particularly useful, adding diplomacy should be a great help, and I know I have some players louder than others to address :)
Luke: "You're here watching this video because you want help running large groups, right?"
Me: "What, you mean people don't watch these just because they enjoy Luke's content?"
:3
"The DM Lair: We put the easy in sleasy, because we can't spell."
This is arguably the best intro skit to date. The way Gary says 'well that sucks!' kills me.
Thanks! 😀
Thanks for making this video. I run with a regular group of 8 players, so I can use all the help I can get.
I've been DM'ing for about 40 years now, and as far as the "Running a big party" thing goes my best advice is to do whatever is in your power to avoid it.
I like a group of about 5 or maybe 6 tops.
I had so many people wanting to join the new campaign I'm running that I had to split it in two, so there will be a Table Top group of five (maybe 6 as one player wants to be in both...) and a VTT team of 5 (which MAY grow... but I'm capping it at 6.). I've had to split the initial content and write a whole new main arc so they don't cross over, but events from each group's adventures will impact each other... and will lead to the same conclusion. (I've yet to figure out how the "Grand Finale" is going to work... but that's waaay down the road and I'll keep kicking that can for as long as possible.)
I've run multiple games at the same time before, but never in the same campaign. Usually I would run different game systems to avoid confusion in MY head...
But honestly... I would rather do anything other than run a game with about 10 people at the table. Been there, done that... don't want to do it again.
I've never found a way to get good balance across the player involvement ratio.
Unless you land the end of every session where the players are back home, the chances of someone not making it to the next session and you having to carry PC actions for absent players increases almost exponentially, which leads to people coming back the next session angry at what their character did or did not do... small groups keeps this crap less frequent.
If you do choose to try it, as Luke points out, DO NOT SPLIT the party... unless you have agreed that the split will occur in real time too, and each half of the split gets their own game session. But no... otherwise.. it creates FAR more problems than it solves.
However you try to run a big group... Good luck to anyone who tries it.
Benefits of online gaming, especially Play-By-Post. Larger groups are not necessarily easier to manage, but if your players are active enough (or can be prompted by you enough), player involvement tends to balance itself. Or maybe I just have a good group. Either way. :)
This is a pretty great and relevant video. My boyfriend just started storytelling RotFM with a large group (7 players 8 characters) where we have to agree on dates months ahead. Even then, some people have to cancel last minute, understandably. So far, what we have then done, is splitting the party - kind of. Basically, we have pickup sessions with those interested and could not attend and do a side-quest which lasts the time the party has advanced. This way, the players get to play while also explaining away where their characters were while they themselves were absent. So far, so effective. These are new players, mind you, and they are very invested in the game, hence us figuring out this solution.
I like how between #3 .. there was a 26 minute advertisement!!
12 player party DM here,(1st time dm'ing aswell). So far... So good.
I was part of a campaign that sat between 16-22 players every Saturday night, it was a blast, but a few take aways: the most important thing was setting the expectations with the players about the large group and what that means during table play. this was backed up with a running discord throughout the week, which was mostly self governed RP, the DM would pop in every so often and answer questions and make sure things (like the shopping or character building questions were answered) prior to game play. as for splitting the party being more work, I agree, however if you designate a few co-dm's like we did, this breaks a large party down into two (or more) manageable groups, the co DM's are given only what they need so the experience isn't ruined for them either. Combat is where we struggled, and that's mostly the only time we broke the party down. sometimes it made for more dynamic combat, when the party fights the same battle on two fronts, if the other needed help, a player would move on their turn to the other group and pick up their initiative with them. bottom line is if the players are willing and patient, it can work. and it can be fun.
the co-dm was given the baddy stats and asked to run the combat portion only. they were always proven non-metagamers and allowed to run a turn for their own pc's as well. the two at our table were DM's that ran other games. very rarely was a co-dm privy to story line elements.
I actually did some co-DMing session for my group
I usually have between 3 to 6 players at the same time in my table (6 is rare)
For some sessions with a lot of exploration, mysteries and detectives things, with a lot of choices in the way to apprehend the story and small fights (less than 30minutes), I usually take a co-DM. When the party split, we each take a group, after discussing a few minutes about the time we allow before merging the party again, and the types of event that could affect the other group. When the party don't split, a DM runs a few scenes, and the other tracks background things (numbers, rolls, inventory, NPC's decisions, etc...), and we alternate.
Every time it goes very well, and leads to interesting and surprising stories, but I advise to do it with a person you know well, and have designed the session with you (or at least being highly pitched).
I have an average sized group who reeeeally like to slow things down and hack every decision down into long discussions that take all game time. Thx for providing tips on how to nip this issue!
This’ll probably be useful for me soon lol. More people in my friend group are showing interest in wanting to join and we’re already at 6 players
Why not add a second session and make 2 groups instead?
So, I can explain Co-Dming for you since I've done this on more than a few occasions. My latest example is my current table where we have two different DMs that rotate games. However while a "player" in the other game, I Co-DMed, and vice versa.
Basically a Co-DM is a "Player" at the table with enough experience to DM a game themselves, and often are, that assists the DM with things like answering mechanical questions from other players, helping to balance encounters and maintain plot continuity and flow. In my last situation where I was a Co-DM, myself and the other DM noticed that we were both stronger in different aspects of the game. I was much better at encounter balancing and plot driving, where as the other DM was more encyclopedic in his knowledge of the rules as written. Effectively when ' I ' was DM, the other guy would answer questions posed by players and occasionally I would lean on him to drive a plot point for the party(providing him extra information necessary for him to guide the group) without ruining the plot. When we rotated campaigns and HE was the DM, I would often be given general numbers for an encounter(i.e. number of enemies, average hp/ac/spells/etc) to spitball the math and provide feedback that as it is it will likely take x rounds and how to shift for what he wants; without being told anything about the encounter that would ruin the plot. I would also work with him as the main Driver to make sure the party at least mostly kept on track by informing him ahead of time what ' I ' as a player was planning on doing to give him ample time to prep(Mostly discussing long-term plot goals and answering the occasional "What would you all do in x situation"). We would also keep track of combat information for each other so nothing was missed/skipped on accident(such as initiative, status affects, etc.) to help with the flow of combat.
The purpose is when you have a DM that has a time constraint that makes prepping consistently an issue. Not only did both myself and the other DM act as "Co-Dms" for each other, but we also rotated campaigns every 4-6 months. This meant that while we would BOTH normally not have time to properly DM, we could easily fill the 8-12 sessions(we run weekly) as we had several months for preliminary prep and active assistance during "our time" for DMing. This is especially helpful when you also have a large number of newer players that are going to be constantly asking small things or looking for feedback on options/decisions. Just having that second person you trust to be able to answer those questions while you're referencing something else, narrating something for another player, or just answering anothee questions can be a Godsend.
The trick here is to know how to get feedback without spoiling the plot for the Co-Dm. Afterall, it sucks to be a player and know EXACTLY what is going on in a game. However this can be a pain in the ass and really only works if both DMs know how the other works and are both willing AND able to Co-DM effectively.
I've seen a few games where large parties have been split successfully, but it does rely on the idea that your players should enjoy watching the game almost as much as they enjoy participating in it. That's one reason why playing with people who have some acting / improv experience works *so well* - these kinds of players understand when it's their turn to take the stage or when it's their turn to sit back and enjoy a scene being played out by their peers. But you're right, it does then put additional work on the DM to act as the director, carefully editing the interweaving storylines. When I've done this before, my rule of thumb was to try to avoid letting scenes run over half an hour - that's when I've found other players start to feel short-changed.
Regarding splitting the group, there's a counter-argument. (also, first off, splitting the party doesn't nessessarily mean splitting them off in different locations... they can be in different rooms of the same general area). Because you're all together doesn't mean you're all engaged. In a single group the same players will always wrestle for the spotlight. If you physically separate the characters but keep all the players engaged in the meta narrative at the table , then it actually guarantees that each group gets their moment. It actually reinforces the same rule you mentioned earlier about needing to make sure every player gets their voice heard and agency rewarded, except they're sure to have their turn in the spotlight, and so will pay more attention in general. Sure, bring them together for the combat, but while doing the investigation or whatever they can be in adjacent rooms. Seth Skorkowsky has a great video on how to handle pacing and rapid cliffhangers for split parties.
1:50 Nice BG nod to the D&D Coloring Album, with art by the late, great Greg Irons =)
And the only time I've seen a Co-DM situation work was because the scenario was specifically designed for two groups to begin separately and come together at the end. It was R. Talsorian's Teenagers From Outer Space, so it didn't matter if things got chaotic!
I would also recommend that the DM for a large group run a pretty straightforward type of game like a megadungeon or some other hack-and-slash sort of affair. It's going to be really hard to handle complicated roleplaying and intrigue with so many people (unless the group really loves heists), so point them at some obvious bad guys and let them get to work.
On the issue of Co-DM's:
I am a new DM running a game for a 6 player group. My friend who originally got me into D&D has been co-dming while also PC'ing the game.
Basically the role he has is to look up niche rules while I move on narratively.
For example: 2 players had a sleep spell but one was a cantrip and one required a level 1 spell slot. The question came up if the cantrip user got the same number of D6's to roll as the spell user. Off the top of my head I didn't know if there was a difference, but either way he'd rolled high enough to put the desired target to sleep whether or not you took the two highest rolls away so I continued running the encounter while my co-DM looked up the spell in the player handbook for reference (There is no difference to how many D6's you get whether it's a spell or cantrip.)
If I already know the answer then obviously there's no need for it but I've found it helps to have someone dedicated to looking up super specific information for you so everyone gets to shoot their shot while the player in question doesn't feel like they're being cheated out of anything.
By the way, this is the only responsibility he has as a Co-DM. He doesn't run encounters or know anything more about the plot than any other player. He also offered to do it because things were getting a little bogged down at first and nobody likes to waste time.
That's Not What I'd see as a Co-DM but more just giving a player the DM role of Rule Checker.
To me, co DMing more comes into play in adventure or session writing. Specifically two rolls 1. Combat and Mechanical progression (Knowing what monsters to use and what items to give) and 2. Story and World building.
It could also be used in play as well. One DM Runs Combat if they are really good at it. Then one goes to the story telling.
Advantage for Big Groups.
Combat DM can give Story DM simple minions and monsters to run and they just talk about mob objectives between each other.
And
Story DM gives key knowledge points of an NPC to Combat DM if the players split the group to ask questions around town.
At a single table that last one may get loud, but in a discord server or large gaming shop it can work.
There is also Westmarch Games, Head DM runs world Story. Table DM's run the missions and quests. but Westmarches are their own thing.
I have a friend who runs a large game with a co-DM, I don't know all the things he does as co-dm but it seems he mostly helps handle a lot of the busy work of DMings. Helps look up rules (its a pathfinder game), helps run combat by controlling some of the monsters, runs certain NPCs, occasionally acts like a lil ball of chaos, and occasionally helps plan things out for session.
Sounds like an underpaid intern situation...
I actually have done the co-DM work with the larger group where there was a fairly even split for what the group wanted to do. I took over for one group while the normal DM did the larger and it worked out pretty well. It's not something I would recommend for anything larger than a subplot but it does work well when the group is separated for whatever reason.
A good use of co-DMs is when you're running two campaigns that're part of the same story, but are two sides of the coin. I.E. if you are running a story where there are two groups working against each other to get the same end goal (item, killing the BBEG, etc.)
Thst was a Time Share quality sleezy plug Sir. Top notch 🤘
I run a large group with 9 characters. I can count on one hand the times all 9 were on the board. Definitely play with whomever shows up. We have this fiction that behind the party several miles, days, whatevs, is a small wagon train where the spare mounts, food, whatever flotsam is stored. Any character not at the table is in the wagon train defending/scouting/lollygagging, who cares.
I also enforce a plan your action before your turn rule. If a player is not ready in 30 seconds or so on their turn, they hold their action until the end of the round.
I've never tried a co DM. However, I could see it working based on these guidelines:
1. Both DMs collaborate on adventure design; similar to novels written by multiple authors
2. 1 DM managers mechanics and referee calls, while the other manages NPCs; maybe they switch roles at times
3. Where visual aids are used (e.g. miniatures, maps, ect), one DM handles descriptions while the other handles the aids. Again roles might be switched at times.
Actually had a situation where my party started split, and it actually worked out. And yeah, it felt like running 3 different games at the start. Of course it was a pain, but it gave everyone some time to interact with the environment, and in a way, introduce what type of characters they were to the group. I usually went 20-25mins per interaction, then stopped at a break point to move to the next group. Thankfully, they were all at the same carnival, (we were playing Wild beyond the witchlight), so there was very little additional prep needed on my end since I had the carnival prepped already
I am running a 5 to 8 player campaign, our house rule is if you can’t make it you will be included in our lore, there’s a shifting reason why people are absent, with their personal quests or too hungover to leave the tavern. Everyone’s happy with it.
I have a co Dm at the table who’s sole job is to help me track initiative, it’s my weakest point as a DM especially when players themselves forget to track numbers, so I myself have asked that they help me.
It works really well! He also does things like helps explain game mechanics and explain spell radius and stuff like that.
I also have a rule called fast combat, which is if you are taking too long for your turn, and don’t know what to do you can take a ready action and skip, and by doing so I will then defer back to that person at a time I recognise and tell them, “now is your best chance for dealing damage” and so on, because by this point they are salivating for some action, I think that works well too.
Co-DM story time:
a friend and I did this once on his birthday. We'd be 11 people but wanted to play an RPG (not DnD but the same principles apply). He'd prepared the overall story, that would inevitably split the party. We both prepared 3 encounters each that we'd run simultaneously with one half of the group each and he'd run the finale alone. We tried our best to make both sets of encounters last equally long and surprisingly (through luck, mostly) it worked out!
We did not play in separate rooms but once the party was split everyone swapped places so that one group would be on each end of the table.
It was a lot of fun but i wouldn't do it again, because while this time it worked, I see so many ways it could and likely would go wrong.
Wait, people are here to learn how to run large groups?
I'm here to prove to the algorithm that Luke doesn't suck, to peruse the bookshelf behind Luke, and to get the occasional cat cameo.
Oh, and the skits! Definitely I am here for the skits.
I played in a game with a main DM and a co-DM. The co-DM helped come up with content and acted as a rules resource when requested, as well as tracked initiative in combat. I heard of co-DMs sometimes running an adventure to give the main DM a break as well. I'm not a fan of it after experiencing it, but to each their own.
Currently running a game of (mostly new) 9 players and ironically one of best benefits was me being selective in who played. Everyone in my group is part of a close circle of friends who during the course of the pandemic, have done weekly Zoom hangouts to chat and play games like Mario Kart. The result is that we kind already trained each other on paying attention to quiet folks who were online, with the added benefit of a weekly dedicated chat time meant drastic reductions in pre-game chit-chat because we're already caught up with each other's lives (that and I start our Zoom call 30-60 minutes before game time, either to allow for chit-chat or to talk level up, story, and mechanics as optional "pregame" time).
I've also found sand timers can be helpful with decision making.
Don't say anything. Just while they're arguing, slowly bring up the timer and tip it over to start it so they see.
Use the time to come up with something. An NPC comes running up with useful info/hook. Bounty hunters attack and their contract provides a clue towards one of the decisions. The BBEG shows up and kidnaps a random NPC in view. Have fun with it.
Yes love that trick! 😀
Hey RUclips! Luke's plugs are super sleazy! (And I love it)
If you want to see co-DMs, watch the D4 livestream or youtube videos. They are up to 100+ episodes and IMO have been very successful. There aren't too many livestreams I can enjoy. For one reason or another this is one of them. The challenge of co-DM likely is finding a good fit. To add, long ago, a friend of mine and I co-DMed several sessions, but ultimately each of us missed being a player so we split the groups into 2 games so each of us could play in one.
What would you recommend for combat? More enemies? Or just more health for a few targets? Maybe make the terrain more challenging to keep them from zerging targets one by one?
I have actually CO-Dmed once. We have a group of 12 total. And I discussed eith a friend to split them up. Inwould then run 5, and he hould run 5 people.
The way we worked is we made an overarching plot together. And then made some enemies they might encounter in the world. (It was a homebrew setting, about 3 nations on an island fighting each other)
We set my group in one of the nations, and the other group in the other one. From there both parties played very similar mission, just with creatures from the other party its nation. (Think of a general heist, an assasination, a shipping cargo etc missions)
The ending was also fun, both groups found each other (as we ran them with the same time) and discovered the third nation was up to something. Thus they bonded together in the final session to defeat the boss. It was very thrilling and super satisfying.
It was also very nice to work together with someone on a story. The plot was created way faster and so were encounters. We only had to tweak the combats a bit to match the setting in the other nation. But we bad a shared google folder with als the info so it worked fine (:
So in that case it was working with another DM to create the plot line and then running to separate groups basically. But the very end the groups came together and played a little bit together. That about right?
@@theDMLair yes, so we ran separate groups in the same world. So in some cases one group could affect the other by doing a mission succefull or not. For example one group failed to destroy a ship, and some sessions later the other group used that ship to do a mission on their own. If the first group would have been succesfull, the second one would have needed to find another way of completing their mission.
The best part about this is that the entire group is now (after the campaign) talking and realizing what both groups did in the world. It is so fun to see them to be mind blown and start to see te similarities and connections between the two “sub” campaigns.
My friend actually co-dm'd a game and they divided the responsibilities into combat and exploration for one dm and social for the other. In the end it didn't work out too well and the group decided it would be better to just have one dm so there wouldn't be conflicting ideas or cliffhanger plot hooks. But the whole thing was further complicated because both dm's were trying to run active hirelings that joined the players on their explorations and combats. I think if you are going to have a co-dm you might as well just split the party into 2 groups and have each dm run a group.
Actually have a story from last week that attests to splitting the party slows combat. My group of 7-10 players, including an archlich with amnesia and a half vampire, woke up to realize the town they camped in was the headquarters for an order of anti-defilers of the natural order paladins. The escape scene i planned out turned into a three group combat at different parts of town when the ranger realized he forgot his mount and ran back all alone. Spent all night narrating three groups doing combat with clusters of paladins in different areas of town trying to save the ranger and secure his exit from the city......that ranger was our first death this campaign.
I was invited to DM a pvp Project. There was going to be 4 squads (2 good-aligned and 2 evil). There would be an campaign for each squad. until it finally time to have them fight each other. I agreed to DM one of the evil campaigns. We had 3 DMs and were struggling to find a 4th DM, so I volunteered the 2nd evil campaign (I had planned for the original campaign to take place in Neverwinter and figured to do the same for the 2nd). I created the "BBEG" and a handler for the evil squads. Then one of the good squad DMs had to drop out (he was in control of the Discord and signed ownership to me), so I stepped up to become the DM for that good squad. Same campaign, just changed it, so their objective would be to oppose the evil squad indirectly. The BBEG for the evil has become the handlers for the good squad and the evil handler is now the BBEG for the good squad. Then the last DM had to drop out, and I was going to step up once more, so everyone would still be able to play (For a lot of them, this was their first time playing and I wanted their experience to be a positive one). Luckily, one of the players for the Good squad volunteered to DM the 2nd good squad, and I would be a player for that squad (in case the DM had any questions for me). I told him the basic of my plan for the campaign, but didn't tell him all of it, so he had room to run his campaign. The campaigns took place in Neverwinter. Any time the squads saw each other (usually from the same side) it was a short cameo that sometimes the players did all on their own. The campaign went better than I had hoped. That DM was my Co-DM. They get some of my plans but not the whole scheme of it.
The evil squads were working for a follower of Orcus (but Orcus was running under an alias so as not to spoil the surprise). 10/10 I would do it again or something similar.
tldr: Co-DM helps with a campaign, but they don't know the whole story of what's to come or going to happen.
Co-DM = Monster Wrangler.
One other player dedicated to assisting in the opponent/NPC attack's throughout the combat initiative. Having someone else familiarize themselves with all of the combat capabilities and then respond to the players attacks in character. It takes coordination and trust but adds an amazing element to the game. I do suggest getting every players buy-in ahead of time. It does introduce a deadlier component to combat, but I have been doing this, successfully for 5 years now, with a group of ten players. It increases suspense, captures everyone's attention at the table, and does move at an exciting fast pace. It is one thing for ten players attacking the creatures being run by a DM who is a Fan of the characters. They are relaxed and just waiting for their turn. It is another thing entirely for 9 players to face off against the DM and one of their own rank whom has a desire to roleplay their monster true to the conditions. Now, the characters have some real threats looming, they are anxious and cant wait to experience the next turn even if it is not their own. Last note: the co-DM also caries out book duties such as looking up any disputed rule, spell definition, or other clarifying information needed during session.
10 out of 10, I would recommend, especially if you have another player who might be willing to try their hand at learning what it is like behind the curtain. I have trained three new DM's this way. and then played as their co-DM in their campaigns. No regrets.
I Have been a DM sense 1983. Currently I have two campaigns. One that has been ongoing for the last 5 years and the other a West-March drop-in at the local game store were I routinely have 8 - 10 random players.
One other tip to pass on.
Try this for keeping an exciting pace during a one evening one shot session or short drop-in side quest.
Do a Hot Start outside of the location. (Dungeon/keep). Have the players roll their initiative before the game starts. Now, never drop out of the turn sequence. Run the entire session turn by turn round by round. Keep each turn to a reasonable time limit. Have the characters roleplay their actions or give informative details not just " I swing my sword. or, I sneak down the hall". Rather, " Brack lashes out toward the orc with his great club". or "Roland presses his back to the shadowed wall and steps quietly toward the far entrance". Keep your descriptions just as flavorful but just as short. Press your players through the entire adventure at a round by round SWAT pace from start to finish.
I routinely do this with a five encounter session for six to eight players in three and a half to four hours. The caveat is that you have to be extremely familiar with the adventure ahead of time.
me and a friend were dming together(i was the codm and this was a pokemon game so it kinda made it easier) i ran shops and downtime activites as well as random pokemon encounters cuz we had a few each game. as well as run some of the gyms and npc's.
basically its just divide and conquer and you always discuss before doing stuff I ran certain npc's and ran certain things going on and I had input on ideas on where we should do with story elements. we also had this inspiration roll thing that i did where they would roll a d20 with a specific name and i would roll a d20 and tell them no(this was a discord game)
I have that same star wars mug!
Great advice...Great shirt .
Yes. Yes. YEs. Another great video. Thank you.
Happy to deliver. 😀
Dude I had never heard or seen of those guys on the thumbnail before and then just last session we fought them
Had a 2 and a half years campaign with a party of 12 players... I think we had like 5 sessions total where everyone was present, and that's including session 0, the first session and the finale
For decision making, if the group can't decide within a few minutes, I have a Charisma show down. Persuasion rolls and whoever rolls highest convinces the group
About decision making, I tell them to roll a die. When the die falls, they say "Nope, we'll use the other option." When die is falling everyone already knows what they want, and actually by godly powers, almost no-one ever has taken the option the die is showing.
Concerning co-DMing, I had such an experince as a player. We had 8 PCs and 2 guys trying to simultaneously DM for us. It quickly became two separate games at one table. The PCs met only in combat and - what a surprise! - never knew what the other half of the group had been planning the whole time. The DMs seemed to get confused quickly as well. A terrible experience to tell the truth.
I run 11 players and I always try to make sure everyone has a chance to speak in noncombat.
Pushing the decision making is tough, I use an egg timer to get them to decide.
Dear God, why? I find more than 6 is just unruly. How do you manage with 12 people at the table? O.O;;;;
@@unshackledjester everyone has a job at the table, taking notes, moving minis, or what have you. You have to have help with that many players.
@@RIVERSRPGChannel that isn't really the point.... I mean more just the number of people to split time up. Assuming a 4 hour game, and no actual DM narration... that's still what, around about 20 minutes for each person? With 4 players it would be an hour each and with 8 it would be 30 minutes... unless you run 12 hour sessions that seems like an incredibly small amount of time for each person to shine. Tis one of the reason the ideal party size it typically around 4-6 or so. Gives each player time to rp/engage and still have some room for actual stuff to happen. I can't imagine a 4 hour game where I have less than 20 minutes to talk without hogging the time from others...and that is under unrealistic circumstances. Honestly your players really only likely get like 5-10 minutes worth of actual rp/content per 4 hour session given any conversations with npcs are often at BEST 50/50 with the dm...any questions about what they would know about x is the same... that just seems like a huge disservice to the players at that point.
@@unshackledjester I see what you’re saying but we usually run 6 hours and everyone gets a turn and they all get a game session to shine.
I would prefer a smaller group but no one wants to leave and they all have fun.
Hello Mr DM, Sir. Thank you as always for the video and the tipps.
Google please thake this as an offer to please the algorithm.
I GMed a game with two GMs over three sessions once. It worked very well but only because we know each other and we planned out things together. I would not say this is something for everybody.
Also I think in larger groups it can be beneficial to split the party. But it depends on what kind of players you have sitting around the table.
7 players plus myself; I have a player run initiative for me, then other players run the mechanics of npc's (if they're present) after I declare their action (for example, player Bob is running his character, as well as Gus the npc. On Gus's turn, "Bob, Gus will move here, cast CLW on Chonk." Then they handle the rest for me.
One of my players is taking the helm for her first time as a DM; I'll be running initiative for her, as well as track rounds, durations, etc., so she can focus on game decisions.
Totally agree don't split the party as a big group.
I made the mistake of doing four separate combat encounters with 17? Players. It was intense on my end an lots of waiting for the players. Epic session but it nearly killed me.
I do agree that smaller groups do tend to be more fun. Say 5 or 6 is best. I do apricate to help with large groups since, even though I prefer smaller groups, I am running a group of 12 players. ^ new players and 6 experienced players. That grouping has worked out well.
CO(Poly) DM Setup:
Setting: Sandbox, easily referenced world such as Faerun
Generate antagonists through rolls, one villian per GM.
Anybody who wants to GM sets up a mission, quest, or dungeon.
GMs host their quest, employ villain how they see fit, their PC stays at home base.
When quest is complete, new GM starts their quest, old GM picks up their PC.
Loot/XP is capped via either/both RAW loot/xp tables and/or prearranged tables.
Loot/XP is distributed at GM discretion, if they accidentally pass the caps they make it up with next game.
Worried about meta? Randomization helps cut it down but you can also require GMs utilize divination in their characters if need be.
Requires Diplomacy and Discretion.
PROS:
GMs can get more time to prep things in between their quests and don't have to scramble when unprepared.
Can still play if GM cannot attend.
Players and GMs both get to witness and learn different GM styles.
Breaks GM/Player tension so that GM is not always out to get the players.
CONS:
Doesn't work for GMs who need power and control, especially over rule mechanics.
Requires fairly strict adherence to RAW, especially in PC character design.
Some players can be bad GMs, and some GMs can be bad players.
5:50 Waiting for a-turn-ity
I know the pain, I used to have a hard time finding anyone to play, now my group is always atleat 6 and more want to join, once a group goes past 6 it gets hard to juggle. Best advice is know your players and know what they enjoy in a game and keep everyone involved as much as possible.
100% agree
Heard about Co-DMs and looked into it, but learned it is a very weird setup where if not defined, both the Main DM and the Co-DM are essentially options for the players to pick favorites. The main reason that there is only one DM is for integrity and consistency, so clearly having two or more DMs will risk undue integrity damages such as having mixed answers and inconsistent lore pieces. There was a time I was an unwitting Co-DM (emphasis on the word "unwitting") as a method of learning to DM from one who claimed to have 29 years of experience; the method did not work because not only I did not understand the method in the madness, I did not get to put anything into practice since I'm still a player.
What I can say about Co-DMs, Luke? They are +1's to existing issues that are already there unless they are running their own table and agreed to meet up regularly to keep the main DM and other Co-DMs aware about what is going on. Failing that will also spell the failure of the Main DM in the eyes of the players... Not Good At All!
Yeah sounds messy.
Imagine the day when the Rogue becomes the DM to run a campaign and just spams units at the party that sneak up on the party with sneak attacks constantly for that stabby stab. Lmao
I did that, ONCE. They hated it.
That's a great Point. We've never had the Rogue be the DM before. We should give that a shot.
@@m0rtez713 Good, it means you're doing the shit players do to the DM all the time.
♫ Anything the Players can do, I can do better. For I am the Dungeon Master and can do everything better than you. ♫
@@theDMLair Heck yes! MORE STABBY STAB! *Chuckles in Rogue*
@@CommanderRedVega That's not how DMing works...
The first time I ever played DND was in 2008 at a day camp, and it had 2 DMs
I see a coDM two different ways. One way is that one DM is conversing with another DM to help them with their campaign and only one runs the campaign at the table. The other way is one DM is playing in PCs to help with NPC to NPC dialogue.
make a intro where the barbarian multi class into something you like. like half barbarian half staby staby
Well I’ve been a DM for 1 year and have started my first sourcebook Rime of the FrostMaiden, before that it was a homebrew to let everyone get a feel for the game type of a thing.. it went okay but i feel we need a more structured storyline.. my group of 6 players is truely a challenge for me being inexperienced with D&D as a whole. This video and many others has been a huge helper for me and I appreciate the work that goes into them.
Majority of my group know how to play but a few of them don’t really look into their characters to me it feels like they chose them just to be apart of the group and to hangout.. is there something i can do to try get them more involved? Like interested in what they’re doing?.
I have asked them individually if they want to even play, but no real answers on that.
Have a 6 player game to run, lucked out seeing this was a new video. Also my first campaign, which is also being homebrewed. I’ve made questionable choices to end up here
"I have nothing for you"
Me, with exactly 6 players in my campaign: well I guess that's as far as I need to watch.
When I ran a 10 player group I just made combat super lethal with a few super strong enemies that the players could gang up on
Luke is very sleazy, especially with the plugs. Hoping LairCon goes off without a hitch!
"Your pixie familiar just polymorph half your team again".
9:15 No, I'm just watching it cause it's fun to see you ranting lol.
I have never done co-DM games.
I did once (and ONLY once) run a game with tag-in DMs. We were playing for a little over three days straight.
The other DM and I would tag out to sleep, as would players.
We were young, dumb, caffeinated, and without any real responsibilities and after that marathon session we all hated D&D for a couple of weeks and swore to never do that again.
I’m really nervous because I’m a new DM who’s hosting a game of Strahd with my friends (most who haven’t played D&D, but I’ve gotten about 6 months of experience) with 9 players. I don’t know how to introduce them to the campaign in a way that’ll have them integrated by the end of session 1 (I decided to skip the Death House because I feel it doesn’t offer much narratively)
my group has a max of seven people, but only four people really want to play d&d...that's kinda sad
I've learnt that sometimes is better playing only with those that are really invested in the game. Is better for your friendship (if you are friends) and your mental health. I was feeling like you last year, then I kicked them and now we are all happy.
@@sebastianleiva9278 yeah i should probably do that...all of us are kinda thinking about it
Co-DMing is something that kinda grew out of an unfortunate side effect of expected group size for older D&D. Due to how weak and niche player characters was in TSR D&D you would see people grouping up with large numbers of players to cover more ground. The system even had a way to hire retainers if you don't have enough players, and many early modules would have possible retainers listed in them for that matter. Early modules assumed large groups. They won't say it on the cover, but inside it will usually give on average 6 or 8 players recommended. Even the art in the book reflects that. Quest for the Heartstone shows six heroes around the table getting their quest.
So what Co-DMing is is either a secretary for the DM or a campaign being ran by 2+ DMs. For the first case the Co-DM is helping keep track of stuff and helping keep the game flowing. Sometimes they are given an npc to play as in an encounter with multiple NPCs. They might even have a hand in content creation for the game. However, one person is basically the head Umpire who call the shots while to others watch and maintain the action at other spots in the game. The Co-DM here does a lot of watching and rules maintaining, and you can imagine how this is not really that fun for everyone.
The other way a Co-DM can be is if 2 or more DMs effectively run a campaign. They either take turns running a campaign or they write different parts of the campaign. This works best if the campaign world is an established one, either in print or homemade. So the players might be in town with one DM and when they are in the dungeon they are with the other DM. This type of Co-Dming is a good way to keep things in the dark for one DM. For example, if a character has some secret, one DM can know it while the other does not.
The big problem with either method of Co-DMing is the fact everyone DMs differently. I would recommend against it in the long run.
The first scenario sounds like co-DM is just a secretary of sorts. Can't be much fun for them.
Ten barbarians, please! 😂 I wonder if they would get along.
If I end up with lots of players I usually do a PvP one shot. Rather than having me antagonise them they antagonise each other. This isn’t a battle royale situation, I did one where an elven prince and his retinue arrived at the dwarven halls to congratulate the dwarven king of his ascension. But they forget to bring the customary gift. Complicated intrigue all sprawled out from there with barely an NPC and not a monster in sight.
I asked my friends if they wanted to play DnD thinking I'd have 2-3 of them join... Now I realized my group has ballooned to almost 10 people!
Same thing, I thought I'd try my hand at DMing with a party of 3-4 and sent a LFP on a group chat of friends, and I have seven (possibly eight) players now.
Where did you get that shirt? I love it
Also, great video, thanks for the tips!
Don't really remember...
Personally, I try to take advantage of indecision time to prep the next encounter. Half of my campaign's are figured out while the players are arguing about something miniscule.
The first campaign I’ve ever run has eight players and I’m dying because it’s during school hours so we only really have a 45 minute session each day we do one of the sessions.
I've trialled using "talk tokens" for combat. Everybody gets a token to throw in if they want to offer advice, like shouting across the melee. Has to be short and pithy.
You mean a free action?
@@Lobsterwithinternet Not really, unless you consider PCs speaking to each other an action (and if you do that's cool). One of the main issues slowing down our game is meta strategising though, with people offering or asking for advice. I don't like to shut it down completely as the players enjoy it and the game is supposed to be fun, but it can really slow the game down in a large group. Besides if you read team based comics like the x-men they're always shouting to suggestions to each other, and I wanted to emulate that team dynamic. This way they can shout something like "cast this" or "I need some help!" (Or "fastball special") to each other without everything becoming a conversation.
A perfect way to keep games moving every single time someone from the group can't make it is just have them catch a cold or the flu. It's just golden. 😂
I'm curious, if you were to have 10 players and split it into 2 groups, what are the merits for having the two campaigns compliment each other so that the players could slot into the other group if they can't make it on one particular day or something? Doesn't have to be fancy, but just every now and then they hear of things that the other band of travellers have been up to or something, and would potentially mean that if one group doesn't take up a plot thread, it could easily be dropped right into the other group. Is there any merit to this? I've got no idea