The assumptions you are making are still, IMO, based on metagame thinking. The idea that one person looking over a potentially trapped area and failing to see something isn't proof about the presence of a trap one way or the other. Negative data can never disprove an hypothesis. The only reason the Rogue's conclusion bears as much weight as it does in some people's mind is because their perception of the game environment is colored by the concepts of "taking 20" and "level appropriateness". Those two metagame concepts turn negative data "I don't see a trap" into a positive conclusion "there is no trap". The character's assumptions about the reality of their game world are being colored by the player's knowledge about how the rules of the game work and what the basic assumptions of the game are concerning challenges the characters will face. That is, by any definition, metagame thinking.
I have this friend, here. She's got a real keen eye, a real sense for detail, a ginger touch. See, she's spent her life robbing the rich and famous of every coin they've got, so she's really familiar with security measures. She knows how traps are made, she can dismantle them. She's done so before. She, barring an unfortunate fate, will continue to do so for the forseeable future. You see, that's why she's even with us on this little lark. Because we know there's probably security measures down there guarding the McGuffin, and this bird knows security measures from a thousand years ago and from today. Pit her against any locksmith or trapmaker in the town, she'll get at what you're protecting before you even know she's there. She's robbed the houses of some wizards and priests, too, so we know a bit of runes and hexes aren't any scarier to her than a bell on a string.
Now, maybe she won't know everything down there. This is new territory for her, after all. She's good, best in the world, maybe, but she's not perfect.
Deep in this thing, we see a suspicious stick, and we send her to check it out. She's the best eye we got and the best eye maybe in the world. She checks it, takes her time, goes over it real good, feeling in cracks and looking for holes, and trying to pick up runes, even licking the thing. I'm not sure what that tells her, but she says she can't find anything on the lever, but she did find this mechanism behind one of the stones in the wall. I was astonished. I mean, I'm a dwarf, I know stonework, but this little doorway could be hidden from even ME. She once stole an archmage's wand from his bedroom while he slept. We've sent her at a few doors down here where she told us the same stuff, and we walked through, no problems. Why should this be any different?
Still, it's a stick in the middle of the room, so I'm going to play it safe. This is a new environment for her, and she did take a nasty blow to the face from a spider a few rooms back. Good thing I have Chuck Norris here, too....
How is this, by any definition of the word, metagame thinking? Your basing your character's knowledge on your character's experience. Your characters know the rogue is good at finding traps and usually does so. That's not simply because of "level-appropriateness", that's because, over the course of any given adventure,
the rogue is good at finding traps and usually does so.
The idea that the Monk can likely survive if there is a trap is also, totally, metagame thinking. No real person would voluntarily shoot themself in the head to determine if their gun were loaded with blanks or real bullets if other, safer, options (shoot at a target, shoot a dead animal carcass, shoot into a pillow, etc.) were available to determine the same information, even if they knew they would have a 3 in 4 chance of surviving the wound. It's ridiculous to say that characters in a fantasy game would do the equivalent simply because the numbers are on their side and say it has nothing to do with the fact that the player is aware he is playing a game.
Now Chuck Norris is a crazy kind of half orc. I don't know where, exactly he's from, but it ain't these parts. He doesn't trust an axe, but I've seen his bare hands break brick, I've seen him sprint accross town in less than half a minute, and I've seen mages lob fireballs at him, and he never seems to get scathed. In fact, we picked him up because of a fight we saw him in with a few wizards. There were fireworks like you wouldn't believe, but this kid got out. My sorceress for this journey, Mathilda, she said he resisted charm spells, disintigration spells, energy spells....almost any magic that could be dodged, this kid dodged it, and without even breaking a sweat he grabbed one of the wizards and forced them all to flee. He ain't clever or pretty, but he's a survivor, that's for sure. Once, we were caught by surprise when we forgot to have our halfling burgaler check a door. Kid removed the poison needle from his arm and, laughing, jammed it into the next green-skinned critter we saw -- the critter's skin almost boiled off his bones, that poison was so harsh. And this half-orc treated it like it was nothin'.
So, yeah, our burgaler says there's nothing there. So this guy, who's survived longer than most fullblood orcs I know, pulls the lever, just in case. Get this, the kid could survive a disintegration spell, but he gets disintegrated right there. Don't know how it happened, really. Must've missed something on the lever.
.....that's not knowing you're playing a game, that's using the evidence in the world to make your descisions. The world's evidence is -- this guy can take a mystical beating.
And before we get off on too much of a tangent, I just want to re-emphasize that I have no problem with metagame thinking. This is not a criticism of the "unfair" stance in this discussion. I'm just pointing out that use of metagame knowledge applies to both sides of the issue.
And I'm pointing out that viewing a character as good at finding traps or surviving disaster isn't metagame knowledge. It's character knowledge. So at least as far as my position is concerned, you're wrong.
