Claimed that you are all about roleplaying, because roleplayers play competent characters (?)
the essence of what you are doing is stating that the in-game characters are required to utilize the items that would be optimal.
<snip>
What you are arguing is that the in game character would only ever choose the weapon that causes the most damage, because roleplaying means that the character is a) completely rational, b) functionally observes the results over a long data series, c) shares the same math-based preferences that you do that are unaffected by other preferences, whether they be cultural or otherwise.
This is easily disproved just by looking at the real world, wherein people often make what might be considered "objectively" sub-optimal decisions that they have a preference for. Because in actuality, people are complex. Because people are constrained by their culture, their preferences, their heuristics, and their feelings. If you want your character to be optimized, and then roleplay a personlity, more power to you. But don't try to tell other people that roleplaying requires optimization.
Role-playing is doing what a competent character would do, if you're trying to role-play a competent character.
I am over-stating the assumption that you're all playing competent professionals, which is far from as universal I seem to imply, but that's only to get to the larger point about role-playing based on observable realities rather than meta-gaming.)
Saelorn clearly
isn't saying that "roleplaying" means playing a competent character.
The claim is a conditional one:
If one accepts (i) that the character is competent, and (ii) that the rules of the game correspond, more-or-less, to the "physics" of the gameworld (and vice versa), then (iii) the character should use the numerically best weapon available.
If the character is fighting with STR rather than DEX, and is a fighter (and hence proficient in both weapons), then a longsword is numerically better than a scimitar and hence (given (i) and (ii)) the character should choose the longsword. (The character won't have directly computed the long term data series, but I think Saelorn is assuming that such knowledge would be effectively encoded in the received wisdom of warriors.)
Personally I don't accept (ii). And I've certainly played with players who, in building their PCs, don't go along with (i) - they build PCs who have various predelictions that make them less-than-fully competent.
But if one
does accept (ii), then even if (i) is rejected a version of Saelorn's point still follows, namely, that there are people in the gamworld who can point to the less-than-fully-competent character using the scimitar for STR attacks and ask, "Hey, why don't you use a longsword, which is just strictly more functional for you?" If the character's answer is "Because I don't feel like it," this plays into Saelorn's point about the character's prioritisation of feelings over effectivness. Other characters in the group might have no choice but to put up with it, but I'm not seeing why they should have to
like it.
And I still go back to my basic question - what's the point of having differing damage dice, if it's considered bad play ("munchkinism", "min/maxing") to actually have regard to them in making decisions about how to play the game?
some very interesting ways you have re-defined terms
<snip>
That real meta-gaming is when a person ignores the rules of the games, and makes choices based on what his character would want, because ... the character would intuit the math behind the game world
<snip>
So the only way to not meta-game, is to meta-game (play by being cognizant of, and taking advantage of, the rules).
If you think that paying attention to the rules of the game is metagaming - because making choices based on something the character is not aware of - then you must be rejecting Saelorn's (ii). Because if you accept (ii), then the best way to work out what it is that the characters know is to work out what the rules of the game say.
(As far as a player making choices based on what his/her character would want, that in part requires imputing beliefs to the character about the nature of the world - because what people want is based, in part, on their beliefs. If we assume that the character's beliefs about day-to-day things in the world aren't too far off the mark, then this just takes us back to the question, what is the world like? And if you accept Saelorn's (ii), then the game rules answer that question.)
As I've said, I don't accept (ii). But I've always had the sense that puts me in a minority of D&D players. (See eg the great warlord/hp debates.)
