Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9804599" data-attributes="member: 6790260">So the GM gets absolute control, and the players meekly play along, no objections whatsoever? I'm using harsh language here, but I'm making a point with it. You get frustrated by the players "negging" you as GM--but aren't you as GM "negging" the players by laying down only and exclusively what you want, without care for what they consider worthwhile?Doesn't seem like a particularly friendly exchange. It sounds like one person deciding what everyone else should do, and then expecting total deference, viewing any deviation as an assault on their friendship.Wouldn't the more reasonable thing to do be...y'know...building something that the players already want to do, so that there's not a concern of having to strongarm them into doing what you want?It seems to me that all of this stuff is built on the presupposition that the GM cannot do wrong, and I find that very frustrating. You're skipping past steps A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H, so that you can launch straight into I, J, K--and then can claim that the players are the ones at fault for not following with LMNOP, while pretending that it's always guaranteed that A-H were already taken care of. They aren't. Those presumed steps can't be left out.And part of that is making a game the players would actually want to play--which probably means, y'know, asking them.</blockquote>