Since the olden days of computer gaming, the standard procedure in beating a game is to replay until you improve your skill or figure out the trick. This is obvious in action/arcade type games, but is also true in old adventures and RPGs.
One of the early King's Quest adventures from Sierra had a door in the middle of a town whose only purpose was to kill you if you tried to enter. There would be a text box saying something like "you knock on the door, a troll comes out and clubs you to death". That's it, game over, you had to load a save and not do that again.
These days we call that meta-gaming, but it's always been part of the computer game experience.
In many CRPGs, old and modern, you pretty much have to meta-game and save scum to beat the game. In BG1 the wolves outside Candlekeep will kill you in one shot, especially if you're a level 1 mage. Either you reload a few times until you get a big hit in first, or you know exactly how to maneuver because you've played it two dozen times already. Save scum or meta-game.
Most Infinity Engine games and their modern descendants play exactly like this. In BG1/2, PoE 1/2 and the Pathfinder games you get your ass handed to you in some fights because of bad dice rolls, and often you immediately try again using the exact same strategy. Or you figure out the right strategy after dying half a dozen times by trial and error. When even that doesn't work, you come back again later. Save scum, meta-game, level up, in that order.
It's pretty much the same in D:OS2 and Underrail, where you can only learn how tough a fight is by trying first and dying. Often it's impossible to strategize for an encounter without failing it a few times. Other times, your strategy fails or succeeds based entirely on your initiative roll and whether your very first shot hits or misses. You end up reloading a bunch of times until you win, but it feels like cheating.
Beating "honor mode" in BG3, where you can't save scum, relies entirely on meta-gaming and knowing how to beat every encounter beforehand.
Obviously failing and trying again is an integral part of gaming and only very specific type of niche games try to eliminate it entirely. Furthermore everyone should play games however they enjoy it -- no normative judgment there.
On the other hand, in tabletop RPGs which many CRPGs are modeled after, save scumming is impossible and meta-gaming is generally frowned upon. So in theory at least there is an ideal type of experience that avoids this kind of game play.
Then how should CRPG game designers make sure their games don't overrely on these mechanics to the point of detracting from the roleplay experience? Can you think of any guidelines for judging when it's just right and when it becomes too much?