
I was thinking about the inherent asymmetry in the GM vs Player participant in Roll 20 games. Besides the obviously different roles, there are differences that can be quite frustrating for the GM: If a single player misses a game, we can play on, but if the GM is missing, the game cannot happen. The GM has to be 'on his game' every session for everyone to have fun. Players can coast some time. The GM has the greatest creative burden, in that he has to create the world / run the NPCs, etc! The GM also has the burden of making clear the game schedule, recruiting new players, and other general chicken herding. This is not different than in a face to face game, but on Roll 20 it seems worse, perhaps because of the somewhat more impersonal nature of the interaction. I feel that people are more likely to "flake" on sessions, or show up but not give the game all their attention. Some GM's have found requiring a camera to help with this somewhat, but that does seem to restrict your player pool quite a bit. I think this is one of the reasons there is a shortage of GMs. Many folks (myself included) give it a shot but just get frustrated at lack of player commitment, especially considering the work they do to make the game happen. One thing I can think of to help alleviate this is to use an Assistant (or Co) GM. One GM must be primary, I think, no matter what titles you use, but a second gm would help alleviate some of the creative burden as well as provide for back up when the primary cannot be there. During a normal session with both GM's present, they can switch off the role of adjudicating actions. The 'off' GM could concentrate on playing a single NPC or two, adding more richness to the campaign. So, does anyone have any experience with this? Does it work? Or does it just generate even more problems?