Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7569191" data-attributes="member: 97077">Because that's a reasonable state for a toad that suddenly finds itself in an unfolding battle.I'm not sure what you mean.Yeah, absolutely. They just describe the actions as being unintended by the character. I do this myself in other people's games.They might, if that's a good choice for that situation.I don't even need to go that far with it. Knowledge of the spell is not required for a toad to be startled and leap in a particular (unfortunate) direction.Except it is roleplaying. You're playing the role of a frog, determining how it thinks and what it does. The frog doesn't intend to die right now, but that's just what happens.The player is taking a reasonable action in the context of the situation. You just don't like how the player is thinking. You could choose instead to focus on the action in the scene and not worry about what that player is thinking. It's irrelevant to the fiction.I would say only if you didn't warn them that was the consequence.That would be absolutely fine in my view. In fact, I tell my players straight up, in writing before every campaign or one-shot, that I don't care about &quot;metagaming,&quot; but I warn them that assumptions are risky and that's it's smart play to take in-game actions to verify assumptions. What's more, I've been suggesting this whole thread that part of this is on the DM. If someone hates &quot;metagaming,&quot; it is a good plan to change stuff up otherwise the DM is inviting the very behavior he or she abhors.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 7569191, member: 97077"] Because that's a reasonable state for a toad that suddenly finds itself in an unfolding battle. I'm not sure what you mean. Yeah, absolutely. They just describe the actions as being unintended by the character. I do this myself in other people's games. They might, if that's a good choice for that situation. I don't even need to go that far with it. Knowledge of the spell is not required for a toad to be startled and leap in a particular (unfortunate) direction. Except it is roleplaying. You're playing the role of a frog, determining how it thinks and what it does. The frog doesn't intend to die right now, but that's just what happens. The player is taking a reasonable action in the context of the situation. You just don't like how the player is thinking. You could choose instead to focus on the action in the scene and not worry about what that player is thinking. It's irrelevant to the fiction. I would say only if you didn't warn them that was the consequence. That would be absolutely fine in my view. In fact, I tell my players straight up, in writing before every campaign or one-shot, that I don't care about "metagaming," but I warn them that assumptions are risky and that's it's smart play to take in-game actions to verify assumptions. What's more, I've been suggesting this whole thread that part of this is on the DM. If someone hates "metagaming," it is a good plan to change stuff up otherwise the DM is inviting the very behavior he or she abhors. [/QUOTE]

Verification