As a GM I am always concerned with making my games both fun and chalenging for the players and and myself. To that end I try to add a little supence to my games from time to time. In my most recent game I decided that when it comes time for the characters to roll to dodge that I would not tell tem ahead of time weather or not the attack would hit them. This seamed fine for most of the session untill we got to a major NPC that had multiple attacks. The NPC was focused on one character that had caused alot of damage in comparison to the rest of the group. It deciede to use all its attacks on the major threat (the character). I rolled all the attacks and then asked the character if she would like to dodge and which attack she would like to dodge. To which she asked which attacks hit and which one missed. I tolled her that she didn't know which ones hit as they haven't landed yet. She replied that that was crap and that she should be able to know which attacks hit so that she didn't waist her dodge on an attack that would have missed anyway.

Now sometimes I can be very stubborn, especialy when someone is getting all upset with me like she was, so I told her that that was the way I had run the entire game and I wasn't going to change it now.

So, my question is, is my player correct? Whould she be able know before she rolles which attacks are going to hit? I would like to keep the air of suspence, but I also want to be fair to my players.

Any advice or guidence from other GM's would be helpful.

Ok, first of all, good idea

Secondly, I think according to RAW, you roll the attack first, and if it hits, you ask the player if he or she wants to dodge. As far as I recall this is how it's described in the rulebook (and how I handle it). But if you and your group have played in a different way for the whole adventure, then the complaint of your female player comes pretty late. If she wasn't satisfied with the way you handled the dodge rules she could have said something earlier.

So, in my opinion, she has no right to complain now, the rules are set. But if you feel uncomfortable you can always ask your group which option they would prefer (although they will most certainly go for the RAW way).

The key thing is that it should have been made exceedingly clear that this house rule was in play. This is a fairly hefty change to the system.

Personally, I do think some sort of change should be made to dodge/parry mechanics, but I'm not certain if this is the one. It is important to note that enemies should be forced to waste dodges/parries in the same manner.

I would be inclined to roll dodges for the players behind the screen, as my main issue is the lack of GM control over what hits and does not hit in combat, but sadly this can also anger players.

Anyway, its your game, work to have fun in it I guess.

I would say that keeping with the original dodge system of attack > hit > dodge would be the best thing for your players. Suspense is nice, but the dodge/parry mechanic are quite nice in that they allow players to feel like that have more control during a fight, which in my experience is something most players enjoy. Personally, i just try to factor in the likely number of dodges my players will perform when building encounters, allows me to keep things a bit scary for the players without causing a wipe. (plus, rolling all my attacks and damage behind a screen helps too.....)

Sorry if I'm interpreting it wrong, but it sounds like your players weren't aware that you were using the house rule until the end. I could see this happening if most of the fights were one on one with the enemies only having one attack. At that point it really doesn't matter whether they know in advance.

Honestly, the rule seems a tad unfair considering the lethality of some of the enemies in the game. Take the gene stealers from the first mission in emperor protects. Three attacks and two dodges each. When I ran that I didn't let my players know which attack had triggered razor sharp, which was lethal enough on those things.

I believe the system works in that you'd know which attacks you need to dodge. Consider an opponent missing you him taking a wild swing that's not even coming close. A trained combatant like a space marine should be able to tell in advance whether or not he really needs to move.

Of course, if you are going to use this rule, make sure it's accross the board and does effect the NPC like KommissarK said.

I've had similar issues in my games in the past- I think a HR is in effect, I remind people of it, they cry bull, and we end up arguing over it. What is typically boils down to is me not enforcing the rule evenly, me not being clear in what rules we're applying, or players just not paying attention.

To rectify this I use a basic rule that says if you disagree with a rule and want it changed, and there is no immediate consensus or the change would cause dramatic system effects, the issue is tabled until there is a break in the game flow or after the session. I'm open to changing things, just don't push pause on a story because you're mad that you made a mistake and my badguys killed you. Quick and logical changes that don't require a debate can be implemented on the fly.

The second thing I try to do is to make sure all house rules are applied evenly and enforced at all times- no forgetting about it when the player is fighting a bunch of chumps only to remember it when the boss battle starts. If as the GM I forget about a rule the default policy is in favor of the PC. Now PCs forgetting is another matter. Though something like dodge should be coming up fairly regularly, so making sure people are reminded every time they dodge should prevent things like this.

Finally, I tend to roll with the consensus. My group is pretty fair and will call each other to task if they're trying to exploit something, but at the same time they'll call foul on me as the GM if they find I'm being cheap or unfair. We're there as a group effort, and while I'm there to enforce the rules and be the ref, we all want to have fun.

Well, however you roll it in your campaign is up to you just bear in mind the following.

A person with training in hand to hand (a space marine definately qualified, even the devastator) or even training to recognise incoming attacks and move out of the way (dodge) would likely be able to discern which if any attacks from their opponent would actually hit them. The same person would also be able to tell which attacks would miss or not really do any damage; either the swing was too high, the opponent was off-center, or whatever reason drove the dice roll to make a miss. And obviously, if such an attack is going to miss why bother defending against it?

Also remember the fights aren't simply the good guy and the bad guy standing still swinging their weapons in turn. The melee is a swirling maelstrom of movement. Perhaps the missed attack really would have hit if the other guy hadn't moved. But his swing was off center and was only going to clip the other guys arm. All the other guy has to do to counter it is simply moving his arm an inch or two. An act so simple or effortless it doesn't qualify as or require a dodge or parry roll.

From a purely balance point of view, the house rule seems a bit harsh. Essentially your players are going to have a much harder time of things because of it, and the game-balance was designed so that players dodged to 'confirmed' attacks.

Consider a foe with 3 attacks, all of which are capable of putting a character on their ass (a common theme in master foes). The player is basically reduces to a lucky guess of which attack he has to dodge in order not to die. The rules system might not fully make sense as applies to ranged attacks, but it is balanced to work in that manner.

Thank you all for your input

.
I have over looked some important issues in my attempt to make combat more suspenseful. The biggest being that the characters are trained combatants and should be able to interpret the combat and ultimately make a decision on which attacks to dodge. So I will inform my players that we will be doing things as per the RAW.

Also, it was mentioned that I may not have informed the players ahead of time that I was using a house rule. As I look back on it I believe this to be correct. This is something else that I will have to make an effort to correct.

Thanks Again.