Inicio > Mis eListas > debunker > Mensajes

 Índice de Mensajes 
 Mensajes 6406 al 6420 
Fw: important Mabel Ka
Fw: important  
Fw: important Mabel Ka
Fw: new message lariarth
Fw: new message  
Fw: important mess medieval
Fw: new message  
Fw: new message Elena996
Fw: new message  
Fw: new message Elena996
Fw: new message arecibo
Fw: new message  
Fw: new message  
Fw: new message Elena996
Fw: new message Elena996
 << 15 ant. | 15 sig. >>
Página principal    Mensajes | Enviar Mensaje | Ficheros | Datos | Encuestas | Eventos | Mis Preferencias

Mostrando mensaje 6441     < Anterior | Siguiente >
Responder a este mensaje
Asunto:[debunker] =?utf-8?B?4piAaXQncyBuZXZlciB0b28gbGF0ZQ==?=
Fecha:Martes, 27 de Junio, 2017  12:36:58 (+0800)
Autor:nicasio <arecibo>





It's never too late to read some interesting info here message


Take care, nicasio


From: Debunker []
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 11:36 PM
Subject: Well, she did.


*Which is kind of what they did. Since the DM would not allow rolling again for player A (you only get one active perception check when inspecting something), player B asked for another roll.*



That's not metagaming in the slightest. It's making sure that more than one person can see something better than the other. Some people are not that observant to find stuff the first time, but others do.



Stupid example, but whenever I sweep my dining room, I always tend to miss obvious spots that normally my sister or mom can see. My vision is not THAT good, but they have the eyes of freaking eagles. Same thing applies to this situation, it's not metagaming in any way. Besides even if Player A wanted to keep searching the pool, I'd impose disavantage.


Sent from Mail for Windows 10