One problem... while it's easy to force players to "play down" to the low intelligence or wisdom they've chosen for their rogue ... what about the intelligence on the wizard or the tactical warlord? What if the character should be smarter than the player, doesn't it break the immersion for the characters to be limited by the tactical inefficiencies of the players?
True abstraction of mental ability is actually a fascinating discussion to have. I've joined one or two before elsewhere and my brain fried a little shortly after. However, I don't believe it's really within the scope of this discussion. For now, the best we had was to see (in 3.5) if a Spellcraft check made a Wizard recongize a spell being cast or a Sense Motive check to see if a Monk knew someone was lying.
I was thinking more along the lines of running around a wall of Kobolds to help a dying friend... even if that dying friend didn't call out in character and couldn't be seen from behind the Kobolds either. It's out of character, whether you're a Wizard or a Barbarian. I realize that it's really hard to not do this, and that you simply can't do it all the time. But keeping it to a minimum isn't bad, in my opinion.
Basically, what I'm saying is that odds are the adventurer's are more skilled than the players are at communicating this kind of information in the heat of battle. Talking is a free action. If a monster understands them, and has any way of preventing their plans then perhaps he might stop it.
Fair enough. I don't disagree with that.
However, telling them that they have unlocked the ability to use certain powers ... which are also metagame, out of character terms ... It just seems like avoiding the word bloodied and then saying "by the way, out of character, you can use all your bloodied based effects now" instead of just saying "he is bloodied", which at least sounds like something that could be in game.
I keep opaque any issues that provide convenience for the character. For instance, I'll tell them that the Pirate's reflexes are sharp, or the Golem's hide is thick, or the Blackguard's armor is sturdy, instead of saying that their "AC is high".
Although I'm loathe to do it, I will tell them very important things, such as being Bloodied. I'll make it clear, but I'll avoid game terms for my sake and their sake. It's a decision I make. It's really not a big deal. [Although as I've said before, I'm not against making a houserule to make a character roll to recognize if an enemy is Bloodied, if it's not blatantly obvious.]
And please, don't turn this discussion into abstraction of attacking and HP. Don't forget that we're talking about D&D.
Don't you ever think that's...incredibly selfish?
Maybe. But again, I care more about world creation and interaction in it. My PCs are more than welcome to do that, and can even come up with cool ideas that I never thought of, but generally speaking, they'll in no way shape my campaign world in a way that their characters wouldn't be able to.
If my party decided they'd like to fight more undead, I'd encourage them to ask around some towns to see if there are any undead-infested lands in my game world. If I hadn't created any or if there were literally no place for them, then they wouldn't fight any. In D&D, I believe that the narrative power belongs to the DM only. Deals can be struck sometimes, but only if it fits in with the rationale and flavor of the game world.
So instead I have to say, in character: "Avast, ye Jack! Come hither so we may together feather yon oaf!"
You don't have to say it like that, but "pwnz0r" really takes away from the scene, if said in character. It shows to me that perhaps the player may not be putting the same amount of effort into everything that I have.
Or does that simply mean we can't cooperate at all, because cooperation is not in character?
You can, but not further than what your characters would be able to do in battle. Reference my above post about how I want a player to think.
I don't need to literally feel what my character is feeling. I have enough stress in my own life.
Are you not roleplaying? Clearly, many people do not take roleplaying as seriously as I do. If you enjoy that more casual disconnect between player and PC, that's fine. It's just a matter of taste.
[I hate how most internet discussions usually end with "I guess it's just a preference thing"]
