Nonflashy Fighters (Dirty tricks, honor, etc.)

[Anguirus]

The same reason that I would choose to use a sword instead of an axe even though they are equally effective weapons. Or why I would have my character be a man instead of woman, or wear a blue hat instead of a red one or any number of things that flesh out a character but don't effect their ability to affect the story.

The problem is that none of those things are done based on "This is effective." People who cheat in combat cheat to gain something from it.

My vote is that we have rules mechanics for all sorts of things, dirty tricks included, and they are available to anyone. You can choose to use these tactics or not. GM's can choose to have their setting be whatever they want and enforce social taboos however they feel appropriate.

Having "whatever you want" for the setting is no more of a good idea in regards to social taboos than available weapons, and for similar reasons.

A setting where it is considered cowardly to use the bow in war is a situation where any assumption that the PCs win 80% of the time (or however often we want) has to consider the fact using ranged weapons isn't part of Ye Standarde PCs.

A setting where weapons that pierce armor are readily available makes wearing heavy armor a lot less useful.

Either way, if we want the rules to produce PCs winning 80% of the time or whatever, that has to be based on what is being used, and "Whatever you want, it'll all work out the same" sounds like a path to a bland system.

People who 'cheat' (because we have objective rules of engagement that are universally know and enforceable somehow) can gain something from it without gaining a mechanical advantage. Also, I said that I want for 'cheaters' to be mechanically advantaged. I just think that the case could be made that they don't have to be. As for your second point about PCs not winning 80% of the time if your setting doesn't allow things that other settings do, why are we assuming that people in a word where bows are dishonorable are fighting the same things at the same level as those where bows are not considered dishonorable? Is it really that hard to have CRs based on the assumption that everything is legal and then adjusting them based on what your PCs know? Why does one size have to fit all? If you're playing D&D and all of your party can fly and use missile weapons then the challenge that a giant scorpion presents is not the same as if they were all melee fighters and I would expect a DM to be aware of that.

[Elennsar]

People who 'cheat' (because we have objective rules of engagement that are universally know and enforceable somehow) can gain something from it without gaining a mechanical advantage.

Like what? What is the point for the character of cheating to win a fight if it doesn't alter your odds of winning the slightest?

Why does one size have to fit all? If you're playing D&D and all of your party can fly and use missile weapons then the challenge that a giant scorpion presents is not the same as if they were all melee fighters and I would expect a DM to be aware of that.

I could ask the same question. Why do we have to design a game trying to have rules for every kind of nonflashy fighter (which covers a LOT of ground) instead of designing a game that actually represents a particular kind of setting (or even a specific setting) with all the relevant details?

A setting where most people are flying archers -can't- treat giant scorpions as a serious threat, and the system should not present them as if they were - but a setting where most people fight in melee may well make them a problem.

And it should be possible to know "what should level 7 characters (or however we phrase it) be able to do." by looking up level 7 encounters, not by guessing that having a bow made the encounter 12% harder but having heavier armor made it 9% easier and making sense of that.