After a few years, I was running out of ideas, so Craig resumed GMing the campaign. Then I took it back and moved the party from Sartar and Pavis to Ralios. Since the campaign was being run off the top of my head (always my forte), when Craig took over again he opted to run a Dorastor campaign. (His strength is running published scenarios, and fleshing them out very nicely.) Since it _was_ Dorastor and no one wanted to lose a long-developed PC, we all rolled up new characters.
I've just taken over again, and we're back to our old characters in Ralios. We've never had any problems with this arrangement. Craig and I discuss major rule interpretations before springing them on the party, even if that gives one of us a little fore-knowledge.
My character has stayed in the campaign, either inactive or as a loaner to another player. He finally made Sword of Humakt, just before we left for Ralios. He would probably have made it sooner if I had actually been playing him steadily, instead of GMing. I never interfered with the way he was played when I loaned him out, but I also never loaned him to someone I didn't trust. I never gave him any breaks in combat, though I was always relieved when the borrowing player made his DI roll. Now he's mostly an NPC, available for advice and only very rarely for support.
Craig's characters were not a problem, as they tended to die. He even got tired of one character, and retired him early. I don't know if it's really a good idea to keep your character in play when you GM, but it worked for us. But you do have to be a lot more honest and impartial.
Ed Tonry
Powered by hypermail