Moved from the game thread.
Naatkinson says:
whipstache says:
OOC:
Ah, but one can intentionally not metagame, which is different from not intentionally metagaming. ;)
OOC:
Intentionally not metagaming is a form of metagaming, too!
Example: Monster A has a weakness to fire. Having DMed this monster numerous times, I know this, but my character may not. Not wanting to metagame, I avoid fire spells so as to not cheat. My attempt to not metagame has led me to change my character's actions, even though my first instinct may really have been to attack it with fire.
This, too, is a form of metagaming. Meta knowledge has changed the actions of my character, though in the direction that is the opposite of what you'd normally expect.
I agree, that does happen. Although, I'd call it
Also Metagaming. Intentionally not metagaming is not letting any out-of-character knowledge influence the character's decision, for better or worse. I think the
intentional is important as a qualifier to remind people (myself most of all) to be aware of the factors that go into a player making a decision for a character.
"What would my character do in this situation?" is all that needs to be asked. No more, no less. But just some vague hope that metagaming isn't going to happen doesn't really work, as was pointed out. A lot of metagaming is unintentional. :)