So I'm working on an RPG that's centered around a racing team travelling around various tracks and competing in a league. I want it to have shared GMing, but I haven't played any such games before so I'm after a little insight from those who have.
All the players will have a character on the team, and everyone will be hoping the team does its best during the race. After making the track and before the actual race, there'll be a part of the session where the players call for scenes so they can improve the vehicle, build motivation, and develop their relationships.
Now, I would like to introduce some conflict to these scenes, because otherwise they will be kind of dull if everything goes the PCs' way. I am planning on having one of the other players act as temporary GM so they can present the world and the NPCs. However, I'm worried that people would not want to introduce problems that could seriously threaten the team's success in the race.
Essentially, the game is about
working together as a team and doing as well in the race as you can, but I want to introduce drama through complications and conflict. While it might be OK to have players take on adversarial roles if the game was about
the drama, I'm a little concerned that having a player introduce a scene that makes the team less likely to win (one that results in actually sabotaging the vehicle, for example) could be seen as a "dick move".
So, I have a couple of ideas that might hopefully fix this, and have all the players working together while at the same time being willing to introduce meaningful conflict.
The first is to tie the gain of an essential game resource to suffering setbacks during the scenes. Each session, the driver in particular builds up motivation to win which gives more dice during the race. If I link this motivational buildup to a conflict resulting in a setback for the team, then it provides a reason for the current GM to present challenges that might actually result in the PCs suffering at least a partial loss. This also has the advantage that the current GM can tailor-make conflicts depending on the exact situation in the game.
The second would be to take adversity out of the hands of the players, and have it mandated by rolling on a table of potential complications. This has the advantage of allowing the game itself to set the difficulty to overcome, and stops any one player from having to work against the group. The drawbacks are that the tables may not be comprehensive and may not always generate appropriate results, and also they may still need a players' interpretation to introduce the result into the fiction. The second thing, at least, isn't too big a problem though.
Other alternatives could include assigning a traditional GM, or splitting the group between two (or more) rival racing teams so there isn't a conflict of interests betwen trying to win and introducing complications. These could be good alternatives, but I'd really like to explore the concept of shared GMing if I can get it to work and not create a game with incoherent goals! So, as I'm still in the early development stage, any thoughts, ideas, or feedback would be appreciated. Thanks!