Interesting scenario. I believe the GM forced their way here, too, rather than letting the story emerge. I can imagine how it likely happened: prep work involved the big conflict with the duke's men and the aftermath. Silly DM - your plans never survive first contact with the players! (And I say that having been there many times over).
Easy to play Monday morning quarterback here but I think a more palatable solution, rewarding the players for their creativity but still pushing the element of danger and possibly ending up in the conflict the DM had prepped, might have been a variation on the following:
1. Some of the duke's men come to the farmhouse early the next morning to warn the couple that some vagabonds (description matching the party) are about and ask that they report any sighting to the garrison at the Inn at once for a reward
2. Either the party overhears -or- the couple relays the message when the duke's men move on
3. The party is now faced with the challenge of getting away from this town, too, or risk being discovered by a more thorough search and likely putting the couple in danger for harboring fugitives
4. If there is some kind of magical tracking by the duke, the party should be given some (more) clue(s) so they can take action
Yes, this would have been a good way to proceed. Move things forward while including what's been established. I think somehow looping in the farmer and his wife being in potential danger for hiding us would have been an interesting angle to take, and it would have acknowledged the ability I'd used, and played to my character's stated Bond about being a hero of the downtrodden.
TL;DR: plan scenes not plot; telegraph dangers; root for the players
I dig it. It sounds like I've heard it somewhere else....
Late to this discussion, but I find this a very interesting situation.
First, the DM seems to have given you a benefit for your background. You got a long rest (presumably, not fully stated); and were thus able to engage the Duke's men fully healed, all spells ready to go etc. If you had confronted them at the inn you would have had to confront them after a long day of travel/adventure and likely a significantly depleted state (or maybe not maybe you guys were at full heading to the inn)? Anyway, while not ideal, that's something.
Yes! That's fair, there was at least something that we got from it, and this was a large part of his reasoning. He felt "okay, they got a rest, that ability worked well.....okay, on with the fight, but now at full strength!"
In his mind, he'd granted us a benefit from my use of the ability, and then proceeded as he had planned.
TL/ DR: Did the DM "abuse" his authority? No not really, it's well within DM purview to have a bottleneck fight. But could it have been handled better? Absolutely.
Yeah, that sums up my opinion. I didn't stand up and flip the table in a fit of rage.....and not just because we were playing over discord. It's nothing I was upset by, but I did talk with him about it after the fact, and we had a good discussion.
i would disagree-The DM unless an explanation was given railroaded the barn encounter with the dukes men. Have i been guilty of this in the past sure but different. dming an encounter you hadnt planned for can be tough especially if you mapped out several you expected the pcs to tackle . Waht should have happened is some of the dukes men show up at the barn and you see them asking the farmers maybe even harming the farmer . Give the pcs time to flee or ambush the dukes men etc
Would love the know what the dm said.
Ultimately, he was pretty much expecting us to have to fight and so he adjusted to the use of the Folk Hero ability within that framework of "there's gonna be a fight". When we hid in the barn, he said that he immediately thought of the climactic scene from the movie "Young Guns" (spolier alert for a 30 year old movie....Billy the Kid and his pals get caught in a farmhouse, surrounded by soldiers who then set the house on fire, and they have to fight their way out). He said that once that scene popped into his head, he thought it would be cool to play out something similar. So he decided that a neighbor had seen the PCs and went to the duke's soldiers. Never mind that the neighbor would have no idea the PCs were wanted, no rolls were made because this was decided retroactively, and so on.
So it really was a combination of his preconceived idea of what the challenge would be in the new town; not that "there are soldiers present who could be a threat", but rather something like "how will they beat these soldiers". He had established a challenge, and in doing so, had decided how that challenge needed to be overcome; through fighting. This combined with allowing us to get a rest and then picturing what he thought would be an evocative and exciting scene, and he made it happen.
And i think this is where the idea of being flexible comes into it. We all say at times, and hear others say, you have to adapt to what the players do. And this is certainly true! But how you adapt really matters. He adapted by allowing the Folk Hero ability to essentially do the bare minimum of what it says it does. He didn't adapt any further, and likely should have.
The PCs were down on resources after their exploits earlier in the day, and the crossing of the river (which he handled really well as a dynamic skill challenge type scene) and that left us not wanting to fight. But he was expecting another fight. He "adapted" in the sense that he let a player use a stated ability of his PC, and restructured the encounter accordingly.
Obviously, it's way too late for that. Just saying that the specific topic of how different people handle player narrative in 5e seemed interesting!
Feel free to jump in with thoughts you may have about the example from 5E play that I shared and which folks have been discussing. Or don't!