You're viewing a single thread.
I don't get it.
41 1 ReplyMetagaming 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.
90 0 ReplySo 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?
55 0 ReplyFirst time?
60 0 ReplyReal Travis from The Adventure Zone
6 0 ReplyJeez. The Travis hate has migrated here, too.
2 0 ReplyWhat Travis hate? He just fudged a ton of rolls in Adventure Zone. He was fine in MBMAB.
1 0 Reply
Who?
2 0 ReplyOne 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.
2 0 ReplySo he’s pretending and his companions don’t notice, or they all are?
2 0 ReplyIt’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.
2 0 Reply
Ooohhhh, so not seeing their own roll they just get into that doesn't indicate if they failed?
28 0 ReplyAlso 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.
27 0 Reply
Put that way, it sounds like blind rolls are the only way that sort of thing should be done. I like it!
3 0 Reply
found the barbarian
21 1 ReplyPaladin artificer!
7 0 Reply
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)
2 0 Reply