Another Himedere checking in. I love setting up situations where the players and/or the characters squirm in anguish about what to do.
My favorite so far was an estranged princess living as a man and hostel owner. He had turned his back on the throne and wanted little to do with it. As a bonus he was the only child of the king’s only remaining child. Fast forward a bit and he needed a (legal) favor from the king. Went to court and met with his grandfather. The king would do it, no strings attached if a) he returned to court and resumed his duties as prince and b) sired an heir.
There were a good thirty minutes of the players anguishing if he should accept while going deep into character motivations and the setting. During that game I don’t think I did as much concrete worldbuildning as during those thirty minutes. I loved it, the players loved it. Great time.
A bit of preface. The games I run, the games I play in and the groups I enjoy all are very open with discussing meta. From story beats to encounter critiques and where we the players want to see the game go.
We are honest and appreciate the time the GMs put into running the games. Several times either I or another GM have stated “that direction is not prepared” and the group have a chat from there. Perhaps calling it early or we zoom in on character daily life (or their projects). The amount of times a “forgotten” villain have reappeared for revenge in these situation is kinda high.
Why play a game about characters, their decisions and their reaction to adversary when their decisions won’t matter? When the roads they travel all lead to Rome? This is very much also something that is part of the game’s setup. How directed the game will be. A wide open sandbox will strain much more against being directed than a more tightly focused narrative. Heck, I don’t actually mind being directed in a game with a focused narrative or having the GM drawing the game back to it’s story.
It’s a complex topic where advice will differ depending on the specifics of each game.