Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7523474" data-attributes="member: 6919838">I dont think I disagree with anything you said tho honestly most of it is not something I see. 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.</blockquote>

Verification