fusangite said:
But everything I've said all thread has been about the PC knowing this stuff practically not theoretically. My whole case is based on this knowledge being practical knowledge derived from lived experience (the way a Fighter in D&D is going to understand the physics of fighting) not abstracted knowledge rarely put to use (the way his player is going to understand it).
That would probably convince the pure simulationists.
Philosophically, I agree with you that the PCs know all about these things, and if the Player chooses to take advantage of something like the ogre only getting 1 AoO per round, I do not consider that metagaming. On this we agree, but after that we diverge.
Your ooc comments to aid other Players in decision making may be a worthy goal in your game to help facilitate this gaming philosophy. However, to me, it is sacrificing too much for too little gain, and it is breaching an important social contract that we have in our group.
Why?
It's
my PC. Your way might be fun for you, but I can't help but see it as running a bunch of PCs by committee with each person having veto power over one PC. To me, that's not playing a PC, that's playing several congressional PCs (or worse, congressional NPCs) with everyone offering in their own theory about how a PC should be played and then one person determining which decision is best.
And, even if this only happens once per session, or even once every other session, that's too often for my tastes. I would kindly wish everyone to be quiet and let me play my own PC. And, if I mess up so be it. I would much rather the PC die on my own merits than succeed on someone else's, even briefly.
Cheating? I don't know. Metagaming? Definately. Wanting to bang my head on a wall? Yes, please.
Have you seen the movie
The Gamers? It was mentioned briefly in the AIM conversation. In it, the rogue's Player says that he's going to sneak attack with a dagger. Another group member points out that even with triple damage it won't be enough, so he pulls out a longsword. It ends with a comedic setting up of a ballista, but that's neither here nor there.
Suffice to say we were amazed by the leniency of the DM in the movie.
Amazed. Of course, there were other, even more lenient, points after that. That is an example of how I see the ooc discussion playing out, and I just don't like it.
For a new player you break things down as they go along. You don't just say to flank or not to flank, you tell them they shouldn't flank because it would put them in a dangerous position, or you tell them to go ahead and flank because they could probably drop the enemy right now or they need +2 to hit. A reminder to flank isn't going to help anyone learn tactics without these contexts being pointed out.
But, I woudn't consider this normal play. I would consider this teaching someone to play the game.