I'm probably just not clear enough in explaining my view. Choosing to accept something bad now in a metagame way to pave the way for future success has to be player thinking. A character would not think that way. On every action he is trying to do his best.
Yes, I know.
I am separating the problems of "players make suboptimal choices" with "players have metagame mechanics". With this mechanic, what seems a sub-optimal happenign for the character for the moment is stil a better thing in the long run.
And, this is also done consistent with the definition of the character. If a character has an aspect, "Two-fisted drinker" during prep scene, the GM may say, "You know, this is really stressful. Wouldn't you take a couple of shots to take the edge off? *offers Fate chip*. If the player says yes, the character is still trying to do their best... but their best may not be perfection.
Or, the player can choose to not accept the compel. Doing that means they won't be tipsy when the vampires show up, but will have fewer Fate points to spend during the fight. They get to make a choice as to which they want. They get to optimize, based on what they want to do.
Yes, it is still a metagame mechanic. I'm just trying to say "metagame" and "character not doing their best" are not equivalent.
Even in a fantasy world, doesn't the D&D way seem more realistic given the fantasy assumptions?
Not particularly, to be honest. For two reasons:
1) Your D&D way of characters always making optimal choices is not realistic. Real people don't always make optimal choices. Under stress, the *rarely* make all optimal choices. The person who always acts perfectly is unrealistic, and kind of a dull personality.
2) Making all-optimal D&D choices requires a player to to have more rules-expertise, and to be engaged more with the mechanic, rather than less. D&D fights with optimizing characters is a prolonged rules-discussion, really. The mechanics of FATE are simple, and don't generally need to be discussed much, such that major fights are more like describing scenes than talkign about damage ranges, resistances, and saving throws.
Getting more powerful as you go is perhaps a tv trope. Meaning the hero seems to face defeat a few times before finally succeeding.
TV gets it from mythology and pulp action stories from before TV was invented, dude.
A real optimal party of D&D characters does not face defeat often, because 1) defeat in D&D is usually death, 2) Optimized choices include not starting a fight if you don't know you can win it.
It does feel right to me.
And that's fine. I'm really just trying to dispel some seeming misconceptions.
I'm saying that in my style of play character knowledge and player knowledge is the same. So whatever you choose to do you are already basing it on character knowledge alone because as DM that is all I'm giving you.
Except, you know, for hit points, and armor classes, and damage ranges, and saving throws... pretty much the entire combat mechanic is metagame information. D&D (and every game) is LOADED with information the players have that the character does not, and that information is crucial for optimal decisions making in play.
But what you say is generally what is happening in FATE, as well. While some GMs use foreshadowing techniques, those are rare. In practice, the players and characters are moving forward with mostly the same inforamtion about what is coming. It is just that the player can occasionally use that information in ways the character cannot.
