I dont think I disagree with anything you said tho honestly most of it is not something I see.I think it's also better when the players and DM are cooperating to have a fun game instead of being adversarial in the meta game. If players are trying to set up a detailed set of rules for what the DM is allowed to do with monsters, and then get frustrated and say 'that's meta gaming, you're awful' if the DM doesn't follow the set of rules that the DM didn't agree to or even know about, it's going to make the game unpleasant all around. DMs should have broad discretion on how game effects interact with the world when they're running, but some arguments here seem to claim that there are effects that have a specific right answer that the DM is not allowed to use their own judgement on, like 'can enemies tell that you're using the dodge action instead of attacking'. I don't think this leads to a better game for anyone, and it's also a very passive-aggressive play style.
Also you have to give other people at the table the benefit of the doubt - two of the situations here where the DM decided to have enemies target someone else could actually be motivated by the DM saying 'oh, it looks like Player really doesn't want to get hit, I'll go ahead and give that to him instead of having the enemies try to break past his defense' and not 'haha, Player has taken a defensive action, now I will negate his choice by having the enemies attack someone else'. I don't think it's bad for a DM to occasionally let what a player is trying work even if they think it's not quite RAW, either because it is more interesting or they think the player is getting annoyed, and they're not always going to be 100% on 'what the player wants'. In general if you come in looking to get pissed off, it's pretty easy to find something to take offense at.
I don't see players coming up with hm limiting rules they then dont bring to the gm. That's just nonsensical.
I describe dodging by NPCs early so there is no question it can be seen. (I find it's often just plain good sense to show how something happens in game for your game * before* it becomes an issue for the PC choices.)
I really worry very little about metagaming - we just expect roleplaying- and I tend to promote the idea of character competence whenever possible. That tends to reduce "meta" disputes to almost nil.
As for DM discretion, I get a lot of discretion but I have earned the trust of my players. I do not make assumptions about what is right for others without knowing more. I can offer suggestions.
For the NPC choice vs dodge, as I said iirc, in my game it's well established dodge is visible so it's a choice. If a PC had an action described that involved luring in an enemy to defend against them, I would allow it as "you ready dodge for when it comes over to attack you" and give pretty much an easy deception check to hide it.
That means the PC does not get dodge against other attacks that happen before the target moves over.
But the target may move in and then get dodged and not have movement to go elsewhere. The key there is the expressed action, the ready etc as opposed to just starting to dodge and hoping it gets ignored.
Last edited: