Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Starfox" data-source="post: 9519558" data-attributes="member: 2303">I'm sleepless and in a chatty mood, so I'll go off on a tangent. One fault I find with myself as a gamemaster is that I am too willing to give the player's hints about what I consider a reasonable angle of attack against a problem that comes up. Example: The PCs are escorting a carriage carrying a foreign dignitary. The soldiers are not looking for the dignitary, this event is to foreshadow a future spy encounter.GM: You come to a road block. A number of soldiers are blocking the road, and wagons and carts have formed a que, waiting to be inspected. You hear a soldier say "no-one hiding in this load" when poking their spear into a hay wagon. PCs discuss among themselves how to confront this, but there is no consensus and starts to waste time. They ask no questions of the GM. GM: One of you is a recognized knight and could likely just bully your way past these soldiers with a decent Command roll.By not allowing the players to figure this out for themselves, I am lessening their agency. Sure, they can (and often do) not accept my proposed resolution, but even so I feel I am pushing them. This situation has become less common, as my players have learnt to use knowledge skills to analyze situations. If I gave the above hint after a decent History check, I can't find any fault.This is not literally saying either No or Yes, but I feel it is kind of similar to a No situation in that I am removing player agency, by pointing out the intimidation option I am discouraging my players from just attacking the roadblock which some player might have found more fulfilling.Both the intimidate and attack options can have consequences. The first can annoy others in the que the PCs are passing by. The second might make them wanted men even if they do win the fight.</blockquote>

Verification