It's seems to have taken the status of a topic of its own, even though it grew out of the serial campaign seed. Ginger, and Jim continue the meme.
It occurs to me that it might be fairer to rate a co-Gmed game by looking at the participants and the GM's perceptions of what happened. Jim makes a good point that games that some might think were great, really did not hold water in other ways. My co-Gmed games at ACUS are, alas, no exception to this rule. Still, although I am not actively looking to do a co-Gm game at a future con, I wouldn't mind doing it with the right person.
I really don't have much to add to Ginger and Jim's suggestions except the obvious one: Have fun. If the game is not fun for the two GMs working together, then it shouldn't happen. I think it goes to the whole trust and worldview and mindset (to a degree) issue.
I think that GMs who have large degrees of overlap probably do better co-Gming than GMs who cover a larger "area", but do not have much in common. For example, a GM who is strictly a character purist, and another who builds powers and doesn't do character well probably would be a poor choice for a co-Gming team. Although they cover more bases, and no matter how well they get along, they don't have enough intersection to handle some of the other person's bailiwick--and that can be a problem if a GM has to leave, or both GMs are needed on one particular aspect of the game.
Posted by Jvstin at October 14, 2003 1:37 PM