Huh? You were accused of meta-gaming, because you played your character based on what your character knew at the time? That's the opposite of meta-gaming. That's role-playing.
Yes, exactly. I was just role-playing. But that DM, and at least one poster on this forum I've presented the scenario to, that are looking for metagaming expecting to find it believe they have found it in my actions - even though the character performing the same action I chose to while being played by a person with different knowledge than I have would have been acceptable to them.
I just wouldn't let you play in my game if you don't have a grasp on the concept of meta-gaming and why it is antithetical to the core concept of role-playing. But to each their own.
You keep suggesting I don't have a grasp on the concept of metagaming. You should stop that because it isn't true, and makes it look like you are attacking me as a person instead of addressing my arguments.
Did you use a log from the campfire?
Yes. I used a log from the campfire I was role-playing my character as tending just before the DM described the monster attacking.
Why didn't you attack with your weapon?
Because I had a dangerous weapon already in-hand, so I didn't detour to my nearby pile of gear. So, role-playing the urgency of the situation, basically.
Would you throw a burning log from the campfire at any enemy that attacked you during the night, or only a troll?
I would use a burning log from the campfire against any enemy attacking while I am tending the fire, unless it seemed obvious to my character that fire would not be dangerous to the enemy (i.e. I wouldn't attack a salamander or fire elemental with a burning log). I am less able to determine whether I'd use the campfire as a weapon under different circumstances, because the details of those circumstances would have to be known (where my character is and what they are doing at the time of attack) in order for me to even think of what I might have a character do.
Assuming that your character has never fought a troll before and never learned its weakness before...
Neither of those details need to be known for the character to decide to try using fire. You, like almost all of the people that have ever disagreed with me about this scenario, are getting distracted. The question is whether the character is doing something they can't based on the knowledge that the character has - not what I know as a player.
Given that my assumptions about your story are true, then it would be extremely clear to me and everyone else at the table that you as a player knew the trolls weakness and that's why you chose to attack with a burning log instead of your weapon. Pretending that's a natural reaction makes my b.s. meter go off the charts unless you regularly toss burning logs at all the enemies you fight.
Answer me these, please:
1) Would you stop a brand new player that you know for certain has no idea what a troll is or that fire is useful in killing them choose to use a burning log from the campfire instead of their sword to fight the unknown creature attacking while they were tending the fire at camp one night?
2) Assuming the answer to the above is the "Yes" that I am positive it will be, why can't I role-play the same thing?
And I wouldn't want a person like that in my games because that's super annoying.
I agree that someone playing not in good faith is super annoying. I just don't agree with the idea that an experienced player such as myself playing their character in a way that any inexperienced player could is a valid example of playing not in good faith.
You're the kind of player who...
I'll stop you right there. Anything I've mentioned in these discussions which I have not explicitly said is an actual example of me playing a character is not an actual example of me playing a character or how I would play a character. So you really don't know enough to be making determinations as to what kind of player I am.
I think this touches back on what [MENTION=1560]Corwin[/MENTION] said about the people stressing over metagaming often being the ones that are trying to inflict "gotcha" style game-play on their players.
Water breathing at a character's precautions whim seems like cheating because the DM is thinking "Hey, no fair! Now my super lethal surprise that I made sure your characters couldn't possibly counter is ruined."
Where-as in my game, it just seems like someone being cautious... but then, there would also be clues for the characters to have picked up on like the smell of mildew, or damp surfaces, or muffled sounds of water, that indicate what upcoming challenges might involve. But that is a play-style thing, as I prefer traps to be a thing players interact with, rather than spots on the map that functionally do auto-damage when someone passes them.
...and the excuses as to why it wasn't the use of meta-game knowledge sound shady, as well as not-convincing.
Trying to phrase this thought in as many ways as possible so that it might actually click for you one of the times: It's the DM using meta-game knowledge - not the player. The player is just role-playing their character how they want to role-play their character. The DM is the one insisting on bringing the player's knowledge into the process of deciding what the character can or can't do.
If I have to use not-fire on a troll because I know it's a troll and I know trolls die faster if you use fire, that's my player knowledge shaping my character's action, which is the exact thing that the non-5th edition definition of metagaming is. If I was just using my characters knowledge, it wouldn't matter what he knows about trolls and fire, he could use fire just because it is conveniently on hand and not obviously likely to fail.
Using player knowledge to make sure the character does something less than optimal is still using player knowledge instead of character knowledge.
It's not consistent for metagaming to no longer be metagaming because the resulting action is less beneficial to the character than another course of action would be.
I think that's as many ways as I can say it, so that's the end of the debate portion of the discussion for me. I'll gladly keep answering questions or exploring examples, though.