If what your character thinks is always right even though he doesn't know about it, that's metagame cheating in my game. You need to actually, have, you know, a reason for why your character thinks that. People don't just spontaneously think, "Hey, this thing is vulnerable to fire." when they don't know about it.
this is why I go with "really come on" the first time and "Come on knock it off you don't know that" for the second and only call for an out of game discussion if it happens 3 or more times.
Fine - in your game. But let's not assert that the rules support this. A lot of people aren't going to look those rules up as I did and might get the wrong impression.
The rules do support it. Metagame thinking, thinking of the game as a game is EXACTLY what you are doing when you use OOC knowledge that way. You're thinking about how to finagle a game advantage out of what's in the books, rather than what your character actually knows or thinks. You might weakly justify it in game somehow, but it's game as a game thinking at the core.
No, the rules do not support it because "metagame thinking" and "metagaming," as you have defined it, are different things. They sit in separate categories. If you argue they are the same, you actually undermine the definition you fought so hard for upthread when posters were suggesting that making a choice to avoid using out-of-character knowledge is itself "metagaming."
In both instances you are bringing OOC knowledge into the game via a character that does not know that information. That they want to call it thinking of the game as a game doesn't change that basic fact.
Yeah. The book completely supports what I'm saying, but because it's a recommended optional rule for some DMs, it also supports how they play as well. It always seems to be the other side that for some inexplicable reason doesn't want any support for the way I do things, but wants support for the way they do things, so they hem and haw and try to argue that the support isn't really support.
