My potentially controversial take is that metagaming is neither good nor bad. A metagaming problem is really just some other problem that rears its head through metagaming.
You can metagame and be a good player. It’s like doing improv with dramatic irony. If you’re prioritizing the gameplay and everyone’s enjoyment, it’s a useful tool.
If you’re using it for the personal advantage of your character, though… that can also be fine. Some old-school games, especially dungeon crawls, are like strategy games testing the players as well as their characters.
It’s when there’s a disconnect between how people are playing the game that you get problems. If someone wants to play a strategy game while others want to play improv, and they’re not thinking about what kind of approach is appropriate and when, that you get issues.
This is a good take* and I agree 100%. It’s more complex than it seems at first, as you detail.
There are no good ticks
I have to respectfully disagree with you there.
Ok so I haven’t seen that show in over 20 years, so I’m going off of hazy memories here, but as much as I like the guy, I don’t think he was aligned good. He’s kinda stupid, and would get talked into doing some pretty heinous shit when Arthur wasn’t there to act as his voice of reason. I’d say he’s either True Neutral, or Chaotic Neutral. Arthur is Lawful Good
I don’t think being dumb or gullible precludes you from being good. His heart is in the right place. In a fictional world of super heroes and villains, I’m unsure if he’s operating within vigilante laws. I think he’s dumb enough to not know what they are and attempt to follow them. If he was willfully ignorant of the law it’d push him toward chaotic. So I’d say he’s definitely neutral.
He’s the epitome of Chaotic Good w/ low wis & int. Y’all need to read the comics more recently. 🫣
He’s clearly Chaotic Good with a low wisdom and low intelligence, and I strongly urge you to refresh your memory with the comics first. 🤗
I’m amazed anyone bothered reading my comment after I made two major typos. I really should read it once before posting.
Possums, the world over, disagree
All RPG player archetypes are valid when they fit with the overall play style of the group.
Whole group is meta gaming together? Positive collective experience. Whole group is hardcore RP? Awesomesauce.
One jackass is meta gaming in an RP group and pissing them off? Trade off that player ASAP.
I don’t get it.
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.
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?
First time?
Real Travis from The Adventure Zone
Who?
One of the characters from the DnD-esque storytelling podcast “The Adventure Zone.” He metagames the whole time and fudges the heck out of his rolls.
I really enjoyed the podcast (the first section, Balance) but on a relisten, they’re definitely not actually playing and he fudges tons of rolls.
So he’s pretending and his companions don’t notice, or they all are?
It’s weird, there’s four of them and they’re mostly remote. So nobody sees his rolls.
It’s honestly an excellent story, I really loved it. But it’s so tough to listen to again after realizing this, it’s very distracting.
Jeez. The Travis hate has migrated here, too.
What Travis hate? He just fudged a ton of rolls in Adventure Zone. He was fine in MBMAB.
Ooohhhh, so not seeing their own roll they just get into that doesn’t indicate if they failed?
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.
Put that way, it sounds like blind rolls are the only way that sort of thing should be done. I like it!
found the barbarian
Paladin artificer!
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)
I think this is a totally fine method tbh.
This is one of those things I love about PF2. There is the Secret trait on quite a few different checks, which means the GM rolls in secret.
We play virtually so players initiate the roll but the result is blindly sent to the GM. Great example of this is stealth checks - there’s no “oh, I rolled poorly so just kidding I actually only barely move”.
Agreed, we’ve been playing AV and secret checks have been great. Using a recall knowledge check and crit failing is fun, because you get fake information and have to work with that knowledge.
Isn’t the secret trait on most skill checks for knowledge? I love that critical fails on those have the GM give plausible but wrong information.
It is! Though I’ve ignored that in my games because I feel like recall knowledge is a little limited. I allow one attempt out of combat to recall knowledge, allow repeated checks in combat to identify creatures, and don’t don’t give incorrect information on a crit fail. The last bit is why I don’t bother making the rolls secret.
I think this is a totally fine method tbh.
As long as the DM isn’t also fudging rolls.
If the DM is fudging, he’s not fudging to the detriment of the players. Usually.
I more or less do this for stealth or deception checks. I get the players to tell me their modifier, and then roll behind the screen. And then I’ll give them a description like “try as you might, you can’t seem to make your armor stop squeaking” or “to the best of your knowledge, you are quiet and unseen” or whatever. But I don’t actually tell them what they rolled, and let the scenario play out.
My players seem to actually prefer this, since it allows them to blissfully ignore the metagaming elements.
I honestly love when our DM makes a roll and just says “… okay”. Especially when it happens in response to a seemingly innocuous action.
I know critical failures aren’t a thing outside attack rolls, but when someone rolls a 1 I just can’t help but adding flavor.
Player rolls 1 perception looking into an empty room with a cat in it:
You see a dragon
Actually funnier when they DO see their roll. Gotta put in the work roleplaying 🤣
You know what’s fun? If you have perception and stealth related stats for the PCs on your GM screen, you don’t even need to inform them that they’re making checks. And when they hear the dice roll, they’ll reflexively assume you’re rolling for other, unseen creatures in the area.
Gets em good and paranoid.
Part of what I love about Pathfinder 2e is how baked in to the game identity secret checks are.
I really don’t like that. Its not taking agency away from the players most of the time, but they:
- Sometimes have situational bonuses you might not know about
- Rerolls/temporary bonuses they may like to use (Like Inspiration, oder lucky)
- Might feel cheated should they ever find out, since you kind of used their character without informing them
- Generally like rolling the dices themselves, as it creates a feeling of excitement and ,action".
This is cool in theory, but kind of annoying if you are trying to modify the roll with something like Favored by the Gods from Divine Soul Sorcerer that specifically can activate if you fail the roll.
You add an additional 2d4 to your attack/save that fails.
I’m not sure if ANY other dice modifications work after knowing failure, but I know this one does. I know when I play divine souls I always like to save it for those random Int/Wis saves that’ll get ya.
It might work like how my table handles the shield spell but in reverse. For example…
DM rolls attack against Pat’s Tiefling Wizard named Tim.
DM: I am rolling the goblin’s attack. Pat, what’s Tim’s AC?
Pat: 15.
DM rolls a 16. Does not tell anyone.
DM: Okay, the goblin hits you. I know you have at least one possible reaction, what does Tim do?
Pat: Tim casts shield! His AC is now 20.
DM: The attack misses!
DM then describes to the Party how the goblin arrow slings towards Tim, stopping only when it gets stuck in a last second distortion of abjuration magics.
The ability Favored by the Gods can ONLY activate if you fail the save/attack roll. Here’s the RAW.
Starting at 1st level, divine power guards your destiny. If you fail a saving throw or miss with an attack roll, you can roll 2d4 and add it to the total, possibly changing the outcome.
So I get that yes I wouldn’t know the number I would fail by (rolling a 2 vs DC 20 or rolling a 15 vs DC20) but this ability would never be useful for Wis saves. Which feels bad.
I do like that shield method, and have used it for shield and counterspell in past games.
So you pitch the die in the jar and tell the dm “this ability procs if I fail.”
Still worse, since you don’t know how low you rolled. If you get a 11 on an attack and miss, but you have a bardic inspiration and you know a 14 hit last round, you can safely assume that your chance of success is reasonable, while the inspiration would be wasted if you rolled 7. It just takes away from the strategic nature of the game.
Well, yes, more precise information is always going to make your decisions easier, so of course less makes it harder. That’s not necessarily a bad thing though; perhaps your DM is just running the kind of game where you need to make those calls based off something diagetic to the game, like their combat descriptions (“You shoot the orc square in the chest but the arrow shatters harmlessly on his armor!”) or monster research or something. Or perhaps it’s the kind of game that thrives on drama, and you just gotta take your shots sometimes and let the dice fall where they may.
And yeah, theoretically it feels bad to waste a buff on an enemy you’d never be able to actually hit, but because you don’t know the numbers, you don’t know you could never hit. You’re faced with a big scary monster, you try to hit it and can’t, you run away. The arc of that encounter is the same regardless of which abilities you used. It only becomes relevant if the DM decides to hit you with another encounter, which presumably they only do if they think your lacking-that-ability would make for another exciting narrative moment. In which case, you’d only be screwing yourself out of that dramatic moment if you’d conserved your ability. It all just depends on what kind of game you’re at, whether it prioritizes the gamist mechanical rewards or the narratavist dramatic rewards.
Likewise, sometimes you’re going to “waste” your buff on some overkill, but you won’t know that either; you’ll simply be told “Bardman McBardo’s inspiring music gives you the vigor you need to waste that guy” and get to feel good about winning your encounter. The emotions average out.
Yeah. But I’m really not a big fan of that. The strategic nature is a part of DnD. If you remove that you end up making it less engaging, since you just shoot sh*t into the abyss, hoping it might do something, or not. Thats not particularly fun to me. Not knowing things is interesting, because you can figure them out, or have to plan and think to work around what you know and don’t know.
It just feels… pointless if you never understand what’s going on and also have no way of figuring it out. You just go somewhere vague, do something vague and accomplish something vague.
That may be fun for some people but its not what DnD was designed for or what I hope to get out of my games. Thats why I also don’t recommend using it in every game as a general rule.
Different strokes for different folks. And I’d be very careful about using assumptions of “what DnD was designed for” as a guide for how everyone ought to play now. To quote Terry Pratchett by way of Captain Carrot, “Gold and muck come out of the same shaft.” It’s more important to understand what kinds of fun your game can deliver on, and how, so that you can tune it for the maximum enjoyment of your table, than it is to determine in the abstract how it “should” be played.
deleted by creator
I really don’t like this, since it makes shield a blind shot, for the chance of making an attack miss. Wich is not a big deal for characters with high AC (since +5 is enough to make almost all attacks, that would otherwise hit, miss instead), but for characters with low AC it is. So the nerf doesn’t really work well.
Besides: It makes it even harder to do something I really like: figure out things about the monster by ,reading" their roles and thus adapting my characters strategy.
And lastly it makes the PCs feel… babysitted, since the DM does not seem to trust them and just plays the whole thing for them. (Why even bother rolling any check yourself if the DM can just do it all the time?)
…there are many feature + ability mechanics contingent upon open rolls…the game’s designed around that assumption: rolls are open, modifiers can be kept secret as the DM determines success or failure…
…if DMs want to roll secret checks for events beyond characters’ perception, the proper approach is to invert the roll and do a passive check instead…
Only problem I can see with that is, that passive scores take away from the randomness attributed to DnD but I generally agree with you. I also don’t like rolling checks for my players.
…nonono, passive scores shouldn’t be automatic success or failure: you invert the roll…
…say you want to know whether a party detects traps as they prowl through the dungeon: you subtract twelve from the trap DC, use that as its modifier, and add it to a secret D20 roll which you compare with everyone’s passive perception to determine whether the trap successfully avoids detection…
…as long as you properly account for all applicable modifiers, you can do the same thing for any secret ability check or saving throw, or for a single roll to circumvent the party dogpiling a group check…
Hm. That could work. But it would be quite tedious.
Also: why 12 and not 8? Doesn’t a DC calculate 8+prof+ability?
…subtracting twelve maintains the same odds with ties ‘succeeding’ for the rolling adversary; some DMs instead subtract eleven and flip ties for the PC to always win, which is mathematically identical, but then you have to keep track of flipping tie-resolution back-and-forth depending upon who’s rolling…
Perception +6, Trap DC 14 = Passive Perception 16, Trap +2
(both have the same 65% chance of detection, 35% chance of staying hidden)…it becomes a pretty trivial exercise to invert any roll after you’ve done it once or twice…
i mean, can’t the DM just tell you it failed and apply that?
Nah. The whole point of the bottle method is so the player doesn’t know if it failed or succeeded.
Fortunately Metagaming Bob isn’t at my table, but we are going to try this out with death saves
It’s amazingly nerve-wracking and I love it. The dying process feels less mechanistic and far scarier, leads to players respecting the threat it poses.
Mothership does something similar, when someone goes down you roll in the dice in a cup and turn it over so no one knows the result unless they spend a turn doing triage. The drama is so intense since the situations are usually really frantic.
Oh, that’s fucking evil. (Lawful evil, to be sure, but still evil)
The only time I experienced meta gaming that was shitty was when, due to everyone else asking me to, I played my evil cleric character. The one guy who absolutely loves my character more than even I do made a paladin and spent the entire campaign trying to prove my character was evil.
He didn’t succeed, which made it hilarious, but it was still kinda annoying that every time I did anything I had to beat his fucking sense motive checks, and he would often try to claim he snuck around to watch me recast my daily rituals (because I basically kept Undetectable Alignment on 24/7) to try and glipse my aura.
I would be so down for that. I think metagaming kind of sucks a lot of the fun out of the roleplay so I try not to do it, but when I roll 2 on a wisdom check and the DM goes “this looks like a perfectly normal weapon” it obviously feels suspect.
Embrace the goof; attune to it.
I had such player at my table but it was more that they could ignore what they knew. So they still were doing perception checks and I was still responding but randomly, without saying it.
Once, for a critical failure on a perception check, I said they saw the lord was too bright, too clean, and wait are those scales? Could be a dragonborn or even more? They spend the full enquiry rejecting the possibility to have a dragon in disguise. Sad for them.
Now I’m curious about DMs opinion on anti-metagamers, who seek chaos and destruction
Metagaming for self-destruction instead of self-interest is still metagaming!
Just ask what their advantage/skill bonus is and roll it yourself where they cant see.
I like that Pathfinder 2e essentially does this by default! Bad metagaming can be so tedious!
You can also use that tendency to make them self-destruct.
If you’re going to be so openly hostile to a player just kick them because you’re burning bridges to any hope of having a friendly table atmosphere again.
Hi Metagaming Bob
