I apologize for this length of this post, but I had an interesting discussion today with one of my players regarding my DM style. First, the situation:
Another of my players is a level 1 former mercenary from a company who occasionally turned to being brigands when times were lean. After joining with the party and helping to save a village from being overrun by Goblins, he is considered a local hero. A local girl seduces him, only for them to be discovered by her father who flies into a rage and throws him out of the house. The next day, he approaches the town watch to arrest the player as, according to the daughter, he forced himself on her. The sheriff and two guardsmen (one of which is a fellow player) set out to bring him in. Here's where it gets tricky.
I describe to the player, who is at the stables seeing to his horse, the following. "The Sheriff and two guardsmen approach you, clad in their armor and with their weapons, though none are drawn. They approach you purposefully, but not aggressively." About 50 feet away, they hailed him and said they they needed him to come with them to answer some allegations. As they closed within 30ft of him, he decided to flee on his horse. I informed him that they might be able to intercept him before he could mount his horse and ride out of the stable, that the main gate might be closed, and that even if he did make it out, it would mean he may as well roll a new character. This was still early in the campaign and the other players were a town guard, a woman, and a religious ranger - none of whom were inclined to believe that he was innocent or try to help him if he escaped. Further, the town would see his flight as an admission of guilt, meaning he would be unwelcome in the town. He angrily responded that he was forced to choose between playing the game and being true to his character. This is not the first time this particular player has leveled this accusation against me, but it was the first time the player I consulted afterwards agreed.
The other player basically said that the scenarios I present in game are somewhat impenetrable and that I am adversarial in presenting information to them so that they can make good, in-character decisions. Further, I expect too much of them when it comes to coming up with "what to do." As he sees it, the DM's job is to facilitate a fun game by providing as much information as possible and giving hints, where necessary, so that players never feel stuck.
The way I see it, a DM's job is to create situations that challenge the players and it is up to them to overcome those challenges with their skills and abilities. In the above encounter, for example, there are multiple ways the player could have handled the confrontation (i.e. bribing the guards, trying to talk them off with charm, try to run and hide) and if he wanted to get more information, he had methods to do that as well (Sense Motive, for example). I do not feel expecting a player who has been playing for two years to know what his skills are and to be able to apply this to situations in game is asking too much, nor do I feel that I should over-describe, telling him things he wouldn't know without rolling or that guards wouldn't be displaying (for example, they wouldn't say "we just want to arrest you without harming you to answer to rape charges"). I expect them to be proactive, coming up with possible solutions to the problems that confront them - rolling knowledge or gather information checks, etc.
I feel that by giving the players "hints" like my friend wants, I undermine the nature of the game. It places undue burden on me to anticipate where they may get stuck without the benefit of feedback in the form of knowledge or gather information rolls to know where they are confused. Further, it makes them more likely to rely on my "hints" than to think creatively and overcome challenges on their own.
Do any venerable DMs or players have any suggestions about how to get past this conflict? Am I "doing it wrong?"
Another of my players is a level 1 former mercenary from a company who occasionally turned to being brigands when times were lean. After joining with the party and helping to save a village from being overrun by Goblins, he is considered a local hero. A local girl seduces him, only for them to be discovered by her father who flies into a rage and throws him out of the house. The next day, he approaches the town watch to arrest the player as, according to the daughter, he forced himself on her. The sheriff and two guardsmen (one of which is a fellow player) set out to bring him in. Here's where it gets tricky.
I describe to the player, who is at the stables seeing to his horse, the following. "The Sheriff and two guardsmen approach you, clad in their armor and with their weapons, though none are drawn. They approach you purposefully, but not aggressively." About 50 feet away, they hailed him and said they they needed him to come with them to answer some allegations. As they closed within 30ft of him, he decided to flee on his horse. I informed him that they might be able to intercept him before he could mount his horse and ride out of the stable, that the main gate might be closed, and that even if he did make it out, it would mean he may as well roll a new character. This was still early in the campaign and the other players were a town guard, a woman, and a religious ranger - none of whom were inclined to believe that he was innocent or try to help him if he escaped. Further, the town would see his flight as an admission of guilt, meaning he would be unwelcome in the town. He angrily responded that he was forced to choose between playing the game and being true to his character. This is not the first time this particular player has leveled this accusation against me, but it was the first time the player I consulted afterwards agreed.
The other player basically said that the scenarios I present in game are somewhat impenetrable and that I am adversarial in presenting information to them so that they can make good, in-character decisions. Further, I expect too much of them when it comes to coming up with "what to do." As he sees it, the DM's job is to facilitate a fun game by providing as much information as possible and giving hints, where necessary, so that players never feel stuck.
The way I see it, a DM's job is to create situations that challenge the players and it is up to them to overcome those challenges with their skills and abilities. In the above encounter, for example, there are multiple ways the player could have handled the confrontation (i.e. bribing the guards, trying to talk them off with charm, try to run and hide) and if he wanted to get more information, he had methods to do that as well (Sense Motive, for example). I do not feel expecting a player who has been playing for two years to know what his skills are and to be able to apply this to situations in game is asking too much, nor do I feel that I should over-describe, telling him things he wouldn't know without rolling or that guards wouldn't be displaying (for example, they wouldn't say "we just want to arrest you without harming you to answer to rape charges"). I expect them to be proactive, coming up with possible solutions to the problems that confront them - rolling knowledge or gather information checks, etc.
I feel that by giving the players "hints" like my friend wants, I undermine the nature of the game. It places undue burden on me to anticipate where they may get stuck without the benefit of feedback in the form of knowledge or gather information rolls to know where they are confused. Further, it makes them more likely to rely on my "hints" than to think creatively and overcome challenges on their own.
Do any venerable DMs or players have any suggestions about how to get past this conflict? Am I "doing it wrong?"
