I don't think that'd be a valid comparison, and that it therefore works the other way around, as we can't affect the in-game rules by our rp. RP cannot affect game rules, therefore the only metagaming possible is game rulers influencing RP. Perhaps elsewhere it'd be possible, but not when the code is regulated by a machine. You could perhaps argue that DMs could metagame by knowledge of their players, I guess, but it wouldn't apply to a game like BM.
I do. This whole thing can be seen two ways depending on your starting assumption.
If you assume that in the world of BM, it is known that the results of torture are 100% accurate, and for whatever reason the guild of tortures is regarded as beyond reproach in these matters, then bringing OOC information about how torture works in RL, and using that for RP's to discredit the in game mechanics could be viewed as meta gaming.
RP can't change the code, but it certain CAN change the ways players react to what the code produces. This for me is what this all hinges on, and no, I don't consider the knowledge that torture report are 100% accurate is OOC for my character, since in the game world as defined by the code, that would likely be the only experience he has.
Just as I don't treat the fact that we can work out the harvest cycles percentage for each season, as well as the % numbers for climates factors, and pair this with the dynamic maps food stat to work out our food production estimates for regions we have never held dominion over, and which in a rogue state don't even have the productive capacity to make extrapolations from. Or the fact that we know each peasant will demand exactly the same amount of food to help work out consumption requirements. Yet we all make TO decision on Dwilight based on these things.
How about the people that don't bother with treaties on Dwilight, cause they know they don't do anything, even though treaties would add large amounts of flavor to the world by simply existing? Or those that use wiki treaties instead, so they can avoid the game mechanic of upkeep, again knowing that the upkeep is wasted as the treaty currently has no in game effect.
How many realms on Dwilight have adopted a "no knights in rural regions" policy now that the code no longer requires knights for region control, simply to expand their domains. Is it SMA that rural lords are all happy to see so much of their region simply wild? Is it SMA that we have all figured out that the gold returns from Knights in rural regions is not as good as knights in the cities, and since food production is no longer tied to estates the opportunity cost of the regions we could take for food production outweighs maximizing the gold production of existing regions?
