Draegnoth:
I thoroughly disagree with many of you. I know the GM is not a slave but they have to Undercommon when taking on the role that they are not in charge of the direction the story takes after it is initially explained.
Yeah, we differ intrinsically.
quote:
By session 3 its gone off in the weeds with a bunch of violent psychopaths.
I've never had that experience as a GM. If a Player tries to derail an "on rails game"*, they get two polite discussions in private, and if they continue trying, they get booted. I've never had more than one Player be a problem in a group.
I'm sure it can happen, but that's a problem with a built in solution.
* If it's a sandbox game and they're trying to derail what the other Players are trying to accomplish or set up, see above. Though this happens less frequently in a sandbox game because the inherent freedom often causes those types of Players to play more in the group, than against it.
quote:
They will simply come up with ideas that boggle the mind compared to even the most simple and straightforward scenarios you present.
I've never had that problem. Some ideas will work, some will fail. That's the way of it.
quote:
If a GM were so heavy handed in my games that they railroaded the story in the direction they want I'd rage quit in an instant.
See, I just don't sign on to a railroad games unless I want a railroad game (same with sandboxes, sometimes I want the peace of mind of having a nice coach to retire to and not have to think to hard while the train keeps on rolling). And if I'm running a railroad, I advertise it upfront, and what the setting and premise is, that helps set Players expectations before they even RTJ.