Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7073724" data-attributes="member: 6775031">My rogue can attempt to trip opponents all day long. So can anyone. You don't need a special power for that. (Although special powers certainly help; my rogue is at +10 to trip people, and cannot possibly score a result lower than 20 when attempting to do so.)Bardic inspiration, luck, and the inspiration mechanic are not explicitly meta-game mechanics. You can play them as representative of internal forces within the game world. People really do get inspired, and try harder than usual. It's a real thing. And in a world with magic, who is to say that luck isn't real? Although, that one is double-locked behind the feat system, so it's not going to randomly show up in some game unless the DM decides that the world really does work that way.D&D has been on a downward slope away from role-playing ever since the golden age of role-playing in 2E, although 5E is at least nominally meant as a return to those days. It's just kind of half-baked in its attempt, so it doesn't do a very good job of presenting the game world as either a real place or as the back-drop in which to set tactical miniatures combat.Role-playing is making decisions as your character would make them. Nobody has yet to propose any different definition. And I'm not saying that it's objectively bad to plan that your paladin will eventually fall and become a blackguard, when you have no way of knowing what future events would inspire them to do so; I'm just saying that it's objectively not role-playing.I'm not sure why anyone would think that's meta-gaming, unless you're explicitly making a character who shouldn't know that stuff (some planar visitor from Greyhawk), and then using that information to drive their decision-making process anyway. Playing a character who happens to know the same level of detail as the player would certainly make things easier in some ways, although it kind of feels like it's giving short-shrift to the the character, who should probably know even more about the world that they actually live in than someone who has only read stories about that world.Good role-playing excludes meta-gaming, by definition. Role-playing is doing what the character would do, based on what they know and who they are; meta-gaming is (among other things) doing what the character wouldn't do, based on factors aside from what they know and who they are. The definitions are on entirely different ends of the decision tree.Determining what the character knows and does-not know is not meta-gaming, at least not in that sense of the term. It is possibly meta-meta-gaming, but it is an activity which is entirely removed from the decision-making process of the character itself. Determining what information the character has to work with in the first place does not affect how they act upon that information, or whether they're acting upon information that they don't have. Regardless of the process by which you determine that your character does or does-not know that trolls are weak to fire - whether you're specifically making a judgment call based on their place in the world, or you roll randomly based on a relevant skill, or the DM just tells you what the character knows - it doesn't affect your choice of how you make a decision based on that information. As long as you're doing what the character would do, based on what they know and who they are, then that's role-playing rather than meta-gaming. Even if you honestly determine that the character doesn't know that trolls are weak to fire, if fire is your go-to solution to most problems, and you intentionally avoid it because you don't want to be accused of meta-gaming by people who don't know what they're talking about, then that is meta-gaming.</blockquote>

Verification