• entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      92
      ·
      1 year ago

      Metagaming Bob is implied to be a player who metagames, so they intentionally use game knowledge to improve their odds of winning. If for instance they were to fail an insight check, they would choose to break character and act suspicious of the person who they failed insight on, even if their character should have no reason to suspect them.

      • Norgur@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        57
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So they’ll end up with a inconsistent mess of a character whose illogical scrapheap of descisions had “win the thing I wanna do” as their sole background?

      • Mango@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ooohhhh, so not seeing their own roll they just get into that doesn’t indicate if they failed?

        • ericbomb@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          1 year ago

          Also for charm/illusion spells.

          If he knows he got a 2 on a wisdom saving throw, then something crazy happens, he will probably assume it’s an illusion or something.

      • Lev_Astov@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Put that way, it sounds like blind rolls are the only way that sort of thing should be done. I like it!

    • Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      When a metagamer knows if the bluff is a bluff, they tend to act like the PC knows it’s a bluff, even if it wasn’t. (As an Example)