Be DM

>Be DM
>Bookmark the page in the DMG talking about Poison and diseases
>Go to the bathroom midsession
>"Accidentally" leave my book marked page wide open slightly behind the DM screen but still easily viewable

>roll behind screen for no reason at random intervals
>chuckle quietly after the roll every so often

SOMEBODY LOCK THESE PSYCHOS UP

Is this metagaming?

GM can't metagame.

>tfw you subtly name a npc after genitalia and nobody notices
MOM'S GONNA FREAK

Like a GM can't cheat?

GM-player is a continuum. How far along do you have to be before you're cheating isn't cheating and your metagaming isn't metagaming?

How did you get the first instance of your wrong, but the second instance of your right? If you're trolling, wouldn't you just do a find-replace?

GM can cheat. But can't metagame. Metagaming is using out of character knowledge you should not have, GM has all the knowledge.

Actually, GM controlled NPC probably can metagame if they have access to knowledge they reasonably should not have. While GM has all the knowledge for some purposes he should be using only part of it. So you have a point.

Is it actually possible for the GM to cheat in a system where DM Fiat exists? I don't think so. In that case, the DM isn't actually cheating, but is changing the rules because reasons.

In a system that has decreased GM agency, though, yeah cheating is possible, I guess.

I kind of wish this was possible in online games.

I don't usually proof-read Veeky Forums posts, so mistakes like that are a diamond dozen.

I was using a less strict definition of metagame. Intentionally using out-of-game resources to affect in-game stuff. You're giving the players the OOC implication that there's going to be poisons and diseases which may result in the player metagaming.

My take on it is GMs can't cheat because they're not playing a game, they're telling a story. There's no win-condition, so you can't cheat.

You could design a strict GM vs player RPG somehow in which case yes you could cheat. However the GM is a player then.

I roll any time the party exposes themselves. The idea is that they won't be able to metagame around an ambush based on seeing me rolling; I'm always rolling.

Metagaming (as used on this board) is when your character's actions are dictated by out-of-character knowledge.

GM has no character, hence isn't metagaming in that sense.

The players will then metagame by responding to the GM's actions even though the GM isn't playing, he's just putting a book on a table.

Jeez I'm getting pedantic.

Even without intentional misdirection, I have to make enough background rolls (i.e. encounter rolls, NPC reaction rolls, number of NPCs at bar, etc) with such frequency that they probably couldn't guess what I was rolling for anyway.

>flip pages of random book
>"...huh"
>"what?"
>"OH, nothing"

just roll it out in the open, even more unnerving if it's big rolls

I would say GM is all about metagaming and much less abotu actuall gaming, DESU. BUt i may be using the word wrong.

I'd there sky particular reason that there's been a resurgence of people posting shit like this? It's some of the lowest quality shit posting that I've seen in a while.

dime a dozen

You really must be intentionally trolling.

...

I would say just roll privately but announce to everyone that you're rolling dice.

...

GM can absolutely metagame. If a player has a readied action or prepared spell for a condition they expect to pass, a subhuman scummy GM will purposely avoid triggering it even when they otherwise would have.

>ask players for perception checks at random intervalls
>if they get a somewhat good roll, i tell them somthing like they just saw a pebble rolling down a street
>if they roll low, i tell them the same thing , but add a little "at least it seems like it to you"

>online game but we use voicechat along with roll20
>loud ass mechanical keyboard
>players get suspicious when I suddenly type something
>actually just alttabbing and typing random shit onto notepad