hawkeyefan
Legend
Hitpoints aren't metagame at all, they are abstract. abstractions are required for the game to function, or you'd spend vastly more time simulating a single sword swing than most sessions last. Further, actually playing the game can't be metagaming so thinking about or using hitpoints is just playing the game.
RPGs have developed this weird idea that metagaming is anything outside the fictional mental state of the character. This is useless as a concept because it presupposes a one-true-way of playing and also moves actually playing the game into the metagame. Metagaming, by definition, is thinking outside the game, not playing it or using abstract mechanics. Metagaming is making sure the party covers all roles, or that someone plays a cleric, or how modern chemistry works. Not hitpoints.
I disagreed when [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] said something similar upthread, but things had moved past that by the time I could respond.
I realize the distinction you're making, and it's not a perfect example, perhaps, but to me, I would find a DM who said "wait, why is your fighter willing to take the hit from that gnoll....he doesn't know he has 76 HP and a tmost the gnoll can do 36" to be pretty much on par with the DM saying "Wait, how does your fighter know that trolls are vulnerable to fire?"
I just....I don't know.....why are so many DMs determined to get in the way of the game moving forward?