A friend and I have decided to co-run a third edition campaign in which we take turns, adventure to adventure , in the GM chair. He is first up and will be kicking things off with Witch's Song. Actually, this will be the re-kindling of a campaign that he started with two other players, both of whom are returning for the continuation. The first time around, two sessions were played. I will join with a character that I have not yet made. The first adventure was a home-brew of his design.
A bit of back ground on us. He has been playing since 2nd edition and has GM experience most recently with Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader. I have been playing since first edition, mostly as a GM. Both of us have a vast world knowledge and neither of us have a great amount of experience with third edition.
After the group completes WS, it is my turn up to bat. At that point, my co-GM will either make a new character and join as a PC, with my character going to NPC status; or, he will take over my character, making him "our" character. We have not yet worked that part out, nor have I yet decided, but do believe I will run Eye for an Eye first.
The swapping will continue with the adventures that we will run being (* = adventure run by me), numbers in [brackets] = number of four hour sessions I anticipate each adventure to take. This is not necessarily the order we will run with:
Witch's Song 
Horror at Hugenhal 
Crimson Rain 
The Gathering Storm 
Eye for an Eye* 
The Edge of Night* 
The Mirror of Desire* 
The Winds of Change* 
That may or may not be the end; however, now having at least done a brief read of the adventures I am to run (and avoiding those I am playing in), I am not sure that our initial idea of trading chairs adventure to adventure is the best idea. Eye, Edge and Mirror make a nice trilogy as all three take place in Ubersreik,and share a cast of NPC's. With that being the case, of the adventures he will be running, do any of them make a nice trilogy for him, thematically or geographically? I realize that the Gathering Storm is much longer than the rest, but that doesn't concern me. Are my guesses on number of sessions needed per adventure accurate?
|Page 1 of 1 (1 messages)||1|
This co-op idea is old school for me. Back when I played D&D every player would alternate as DM at some point. It worked for us and we enjoyed it. Another idea we implemented once was one person GMs while another plays the villians/monsters. This worked well in that the adversary player had the ability to focus on how the enemy might act in a given scene based on their own motives rather than how the story is "supposed to go"; but, it does make it more difficult for the GM to alter certain story elements on the spot or fudge rolls if he wants to the help the PCs in combat. For Warhammer I think this method could work well since even small combat scenes can be a lot for a GM to keep up with: A/C/E, action cards, wounds, and creature abilities. The GM could still control important adversaries, such as Nemesis, if he wants or allow the adversary player play him as his "character"; this can make things more interesting for everyone even the GM. Ultimately the GM is still the final arbitrator and as long as everyone understands it is all for fun and that the GM will still guide the story and jump as needed then it can lead to some exceptionally good role-playing.
Good luck and happy gaming.
|Page 1 of 1 (1 messages)||1|