 |
 |
 |
Icons courtesy of komodomedia.com
We have sometimes played Paranoia with two GM's. The GM's shared the duties so that one GM played NPC's while another GM took care of other GM'ing activities. The major advantage was that NPC's got more depth in their personalities, since there was a dedicted GM for them.
There's another advantage with the dual GM scheme. When the players' party splits in two, then each GM's can take one half of the party and play simultaneously, which means less idling for players. In Paranoia splitting/soloing happens sometimes quite naturally, but when it is known that there will be two GM's, such splits can be even designed into adventures.
To keep things in harmony, it is a good idea if the GM's design the adventure to be played together.
The idea should work with other RPG's, too.
  |
About controlling the flow of
About controlling the flow of information: You simply use a combination of passing post-it -notes and ordering non-involved players leave the room temporarily. (Yes, a Paranoia session definitely requires two rooms with a closed door between them. With two GM's, you usually can play in both rooms instead of the other room simply waiting.)
In Paranoia the players try
In Paranoia the players try to solve the adventure in some vague form of a co-operation, but they also have secret agendas to hurt each other. Those agendas often cause some players to do things in secret, and since the players play to some extent against each other, hearing things you're not supposed to hear is more harmful than in more co-operation spirited RPG's.
Having never played it, what
Having never played it, what is it about Paranoia that lends itself to splitting the party or soloing? Do you find there are problems controlling the flow of information, where people overhear things they're not supposed to? I know we're all supposed to play as if we didn't hear what the other players heard, but it's hard to not let that influence your actions.