Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SteelCoyote" data-source="post: 4560501" data-attributes="member: 21543">^ That was how I was doing things.&nbsp; I see that in my OP I didn't make that clear when I'd say &quot;you're hit&quot;.I still, despite liking Mouseferatu's suggestion, prefer this style of gaming since it's most like the 1st &amp; 2nd edition games I grew up with where the player (and thus the character) didn't always know what -exactly- was the right thing to do.The classic example of this style was my GM's classic response to my Rogue searching for a trap:&quot;You don't detect any traps&quot;Saying that he/she would be hit shouldn't (imho) automatically tell the player whether or not the use of Shield would be successful (especially as it still has a useful extended defensive effect).I like to blur the line separating character from player knowledge, so the player is less likely to metagame and more likely to play as the character would have to--making decisions on the fly without absolute knowledge.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SteelCoyote, post: 4560501, member: 21543"] ^ That was how I was doing things. I see that in my OP I didn't make that clear when I'd say "you're hit". I still, despite liking Mouseferatu's suggestion, prefer this style of gaming since it's most like the 1st & 2nd edition games I grew up with where the player (and thus the character) didn't always know what -exactly- was the right thing to do. The classic example of this style was my GM's classic response to my Rogue searching for a trap:[I]"You don't detect any traps"[/I] Saying that he/she would be hit shouldn't (imho) automatically tell the player whether or not the use of Shield would be successful (especially as it still has a useful extended defensive effect). I like to blur the line separating character from player knowledge, so the player is less likely to metagame and more likely to play as the character would have to--making decisions on the fly without absolute knowledge. [/QUOTE]

Verification