The GM picks a player to help with stuff (combat, story, sidequests, managing/playing NPCs) did this ever work in one of your games, ended badly or just left you mildly annoyed?
Is this something only new GMs do? because I personally think that's the case, but I would like to hear other people's experiences
>>46046706
I'm just terrible at numbers simply don't want to even try it so usually I ask our engieneer player to make the math and rule consulting.
Bonus: I'm asian.
>>46046846
well that's a valid excuse, but I haven't played very crunchy games, hardest one must have been special, and even then my GM had some spreadsheets in excel ready to calculate the damage quickly.
>>46046706
my groups don't usually have one but when I GM, inevitably, there's always a player who knows the rules better than i do (see: legitimate short-term memory loss). so i always wind up planning and writing things down while that player corrects me on like 50% of everything i say with citations on how the rules work.
it'd be nice if they actually knew i was medically admitted and weren't just a rules-gouging asshole about it all the time just because my notes aren't thorough enough :')
>>46046706
I had a very bad experience with it on the first campaign I GMed, though he was a massive dickbag to begin with.
>>46046902
I dump control of friendly NPCs (that the players properly underand) onto my players all the time. Enemies and complex allies are a different matter, but I don't feel like determining the movement for 7 goddamn arbites, and they come up with some hilarious ideas for the characters.
Co-dming has only always been good in my experiences. But I've only played online games. Me the co-dm would private message each other and it would seriously help with improvising A LOT of shit.
>>46046706
I home brewed a universe with a friend. He would help GM in the early sessions but we would just but head mid game. It turned out better to plan sessions and story arcs/decisions before sessions and just have me run it. Eventually I got him in as a player. I trusted him enough not to make decisions based off his knowledge of plot points. He did this by making a character with a very rigid sense of morals. I also threw in some new things he didn't know about.
So in planning? yeah a co-GM helps a lot. In game? The improv can butt heads.
>>46046706
A good co-GM is just a player who you understand really well and knows how to keep the ball rolling. A perfect game is one where the players are all in some sense co-GMs.
>>46046706
I tend to take notes as a player for myself and the party in most games, so I guess I do that sometimes. In a big game, you need one to keep things orderly and moving quickly. Mostly >>46047393
OP here, I'm actually amazed, I expected to see nothing but bad experiences, thanks for the replies so far guys
>>46047502
It's trpgs, the people you play with and the adventures you have are more important than the system you play. Most horror stories come from playing with people you don't know or online. Having a dude take notes helps keep the players straight and expecting the gm to remember everything is an impossible task
>>46046706
>I cannot administrate a children's game by myself
Boy, kids are getting real fucking stupid
>>46046902
>it'd be nice if they actually knew i was medically admitted
Welll why don't you tell them? Talking solves a lot of problems.
>>46047592
>Most horror stories come from playing with people you don't know or online.
Or "that one friend who is really quite an asshole but you can't ditch him because investment and social standards"
>>46046706
Occasional co-GM here. Did it as a swap out for my buddy who was our regular guy when he and his wife wanted a chance to play, and it grew to where I was the master of minutia while he was the guy steering the ship. Worked out okay, since we'd known each other since 2nd grade. If he were to ask, yeah, I'd be down to do it again in a heartbeat.
I won't do it for anyone but him, though, since the last time I did it the GM basically took to dumping all of the plot progression on me (it was a forum RPG). It reached a breaking point when the whole thing ended up in my lap because he decided to drop it like it's hot. Made me have to walk away from it because, from the get go on the whole mess, he knew that I was only helping out to keep things moving encourage participation. Ruined an otherwise great game, too.
>>46046706
I have a friend that is constantly trying to get me to GM something.
I plan on shanghaing him into Co-GMing when I give in to his demands.
>>46046706
>did this ever work in one of your games
Did it twice, was a disaster both times. I don't think it's inherently a bad idea, but it runs you headlong into one of the most fundamental problems not only in gaming, but in life in general, which is that most people are not self-aware. They will say they're going to do a thing one way, and plan to do it that way, and intend to do it that way, but then still give in to their more basic nature and do it wrong.
If I ever co-GMed a game again, which would be very unlikely, it would only be in a clearly defined hierarchy. One GM, one assistant GM, not two people working as equals. One of them inevitably goes off the plan and fucks everything up, and then it's very chaotic, as if the GM is suffering a psychotic break at the table.
>>46046706
Forever DM here, currently running 2-3 sessions weekly over voice chat (6 players+me)
My sessions are like 2x as good because of two players who can't always make it, so they often play supporting characters or help with keeping track of stuff or coming up with fun events and so on.
It's pretty awesome when the players arrive at an inn and the 2 players immediately start improvising dialogue and characters, or when someone can't make it one week and then when they show up they've written pages of notes about what one of the old villains in the campaign might have been up to in case he makes a comeback.
My personal opinion is that it's AWESOME to have backup GM/players, but if you're using them just to keep track of combat you should just switch to a simpler system. If you have the opportunity to use them to make the setting and characters more immersive or provide different perspectives that might make npcs feel more alive though, it's fantastic.
Full co-GMing is a warning sign for me, because in my experience it usually means the GM is lazy, unmotivated, or otherwise knows they probably can't actually run a game as they'd like to. Having a second GM doesn't usually seem to fix this.
Requesting players to handle minor shit, on the other hand, usually works out great from what I've seen. There's usually at least one player enthusiastic enough to do it, and sometimes taking just a little load off the GM can be a big help. I also get the feeling it helps with the players' sense of investment in the campaign, though that one's harder to quantify.
I usually rules lawyer (when asked to or as needed by gm) or just generally vouch for Gms order when players are getting out of hand.
I just want to play a good smooth game, so I assume it's working well but I ain't the Adam so what do I know?
Wish he'd switch out of crunch heavy 3.P like I did especially since both of us prefer more to heavy systems anyway, but oh well
>>46046706
Please state the source of the picture. Reverse image search brought up nthing conclusive.
I'm not so much the co-gm so much as the"holy shit this is the third time he's gotten this wrong, 'no gm it works like that', Jesus he's got the pfsrd right there just have it open man" guy. We love our GM but I sware to god they are the most forgetful son of a bitch, and God help me they get pissy right up until the rule right in their face and they go "Oh yeah that IS how it works.
I make it seem like this happens often, it doesn't but Christ it's bad when it does, which makes me wonder why we chose of when they like 5e better.
