Part of roleplaying is not metagaming. Even if the players suspect something is wrong, you play like you don’t because your character would not know that. At least I find it more fun to play that way. I’m not there to min/max my adventure.
I wouldn’t even akin meta gaming to min-maxing, I’d say its closer to cheating. Not everyone plays the same obviously, and I’m sure some are fine with it. But your character is acting on information they couldn’t possibly know.
I get that it’s not technically cheating at a lot of tables, which is why we call it meta gaming instead, but still… it’s kinda BS.
It’s only cheating if you know for sure what the DM is going to do and they are not just messing with you. This situation could totally just be an actual dog that only the Paladin thinks is a monster due to DM nonsense.
The players may know something is up, but the characters do not, so for the sake of roleplay there should be a conflict between the paladin and the rest of the group.
It depends on a lot of things. Typically you don’t want to use “outside” knowledge. So if you and the group are bullshitting before the session and you learn your paladin has high af perception you’d try not to let that knowledge bleed over into your character. But if it naturally comes up in the game “my paladin keeps passing perception checks that I keep failing” it’d be similar to noticing you have a really perceptive friend and you begin to trust their instincts a bit more and more.
The characters probably shouldn’t know the exact stats, but I mean, some things are reasonably obvious. For example if the barbarian pc turned an enemy into mush with a single hit in the last battle, the character can assume that they’re very strong. And so on.
Wouldn’t it be obvious that it’s not a dog though. You don’t need to see the image to know it’s not gonna be a dog, given the setup
Two things:
As a DM, giving players false positives when they try to metagame is HILARIOUS.
Players are generally expected to act “in-character”. D&D isn’t a game about winning or losing, it’s about making a story.
deleted by creator
The players know that. Their characters don’t.
Part of roleplaying is not metagaming. Even if the players suspect something is wrong, you play like you don’t because your character would not know that. At least I find it more fun to play that way. I’m not there to min/max my adventure.
I wouldn’t even akin meta gaming to min-maxing, I’d say its closer to cheating. Not everyone plays the same obviously, and I’m sure some are fine with it. But your character is acting on information they couldn’t possibly know.
I get that it’s not technically cheating at a lot of tables, which is why we call it meta gaming instead, but still… it’s kinda BS.
It’s only cheating if you know for sure what the DM is going to do and they are not just messing with you. This situation could totally just be an actual dog that only the Paladin thinks is a monster due to DM nonsense.
The players may know something is up, but the characters do not, so for the sake of roleplay there should be a conflict between the paladin and the rest of the group.
deleted by creator
It depends on a lot of things. Typically you don’t want to use “outside” knowledge. So if you and the group are bullshitting before the session and you learn your paladin has high af perception you’d try not to let that knowledge bleed over into your character. But if it naturally comes up in the game “my paladin keeps passing perception checks that I keep failing” it’d be similar to noticing you have a really perceptive friend and you begin to trust their instincts a bit more and more.
The characters probably shouldn’t know the exact stats, but I mean, some things are reasonably obvious. For example if the barbarian pc turned an enemy into mush with a single hit in the last battle, the character can assume that they’re very strong. And so on.
Part of what’s so funny about RPGs is being able to anticipate things that your character can’t, and so they do stupid things for stupid reasons