Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs
obligatory pathfinder fixes that
pf2e has an action called recall knowledge that lets you roll to see if your character knows something about something. in this case, player could ask if trolls have any weaknesses, and roll a recall knowledge check using society (trolls are humanoid) and they might be able to learn about the trolls' fire weakness
Plenty of systems have something for that, often with a variety of options.
A bookish Exalted character might roll Intelligence + Lore to remember having learned about the weakness to fire before. Or maybe Intelligence + Occult if the weakness is supernatural in nature. A combat-oriented character might roll Wits + War to deduce that fire is needed based on the knowledge of old battle reports involving trolls. Maybe even something involving Survival if they're familiar with a region trolls can appear in.
A game with a flexible skill system has a lot of room for such things.
Plenty of systems have something for that, often with a variety of options.
I believe 5e has a similar rule, but it seems rare for players to have actually read the rules. I don't think D&D is especially detailed about this, but I don't know where the book is to check. I don't think they give DCs, where I wouldn't be surprised if Pathfinder 2e had a simple "target number is 8 + the creature's HD" formula with guidance on what to do for the range of possible outcomes.
yeah in pf2 it's a level based DC, and if it's an uncommon, rare, or unique creature that will increase the DC
also the skill to use for recall knowledge depends on the creature's trait:
humanoid > society;
animal > nature;
dragon > arcana;
abberation > occultism;
etc
though the GM can rule that you can use something else if they choose.
Without looking it up, I'm fairly certain that Arcana, Nature, and maybe even Survival checks can all be employed to fill this "character knowledge" confirmation, and have always been used for this and more. 🤦🏼♂️
in the remaster trolls have the humanoid trait, so they use society. GM can rule to change that, though.
So, Nature or Survival, then. Different rolls for different outcomes, but the point stands. 🫡✨
Metagaming kills the game!
I took some very silly decisions because that’s how I thought the character would behave. Only once did I regret it: I made too shy a character and that made for a boring trip. Usually, it was a lot of fun. Honorable mention: being flown away by an angry dragon that I knew would be defeated soon without my character’s intervention, but my character obviously didn’t care. So they went >splat<. Worthy death at the end of a campaign!
Tip for shy/annoying/cowardly/etc. characters is to make it a thing they overcome. My current character is just a lil’ guy who basically got possessed so he’s constantly scared shitless but he’s trying his best and I’m always on the lookout for opportunities to get him out of his shell or even just to feel like he has to say something whether he likes it or not.
Great suggestion! Will try to work on it next time. I must admit my characters have very little character development usually. I should work on that!
Unsolicited but usually helpful advice is my forte lol! Appreciate the appreciation!
Person on the left is calculating every move and winning battles so the other one can be a careless goober (also they're dating)
I'll take a meta gamer over someone with "my guy" syndrome any day. At least they'll progress the plot.
There's more than the two alternatives of playing "Myself, a person who games a lot and knows things a veteran gamer would know, but with D&D powers" and "The personification of chaotic stupidity that is my alter-ego, an insufferable piece of shit, but with D&D powers".
The "My Guy" syndrome is the inexperienced person's experimentation of Improving in RPGs. The meta-gamer is the experienced-but-tactless person's desire to play the game straight up as a board game, rather than a social experience.
There's a third - even more experienced - kind of player, who can seamlessly integrate the rules they're very familiar with into the story of their character that they're trying to tell. The player who says "I'm going to play a kleptomaniac Rogue" and proceeds to steal the belt off a rampaging Ogre to trip him with his own pants as a combat maneuver. Or the player who says "I'm going to play a Stubbornly Self-Righteous Knight" and is as rigid in his morals as he is tankie in his ability hold the line when the party needs it most.
These players lean into their conflicts for a comedic interlude, then squad up to form a deadly duo when its time to crack heads. And that makes the game both more fun for everyone at the table (especially the DM) than someone mired in the technicalities of a feat description or obsessed with being the center of attention.
My guy syndrome?
Ah, okay then. Hadn't seen it in that phrasing before. Pretty stupid as an idea though. The issue is not that someone wants to follow diagetic character motivations, or even that someone else wants to play with a focus on successful combat encounters regardless of diagetic knowledge. It's that they both ended up at the same table. The DM fucked up by not setting expectations regarding the kind of table they were running. It is our duty as organizers of play to prevent these kinds of people from playing different games at the same table.
It's not just the GM's responsibility. All the players at the table should be having those discussions throughout play
Best of both worlds: Always role play a tactician or veteran if you have a lot of game knowledge and you want to use it.
Play an idiot when you are playing a game set in a world or using a system you are completely unfamiliar with.