If you are trying to align your subjective opinion with some kind of majority in an attempt to validate your preference over mine, I can't stop you. But I don't see that as anything more than an appeal to popularity (and I'm not even sure your opinion is the more common one).
Fair enough, but unless your rulebooks are the size of the collected Encyclopedia Brittanica there's inevitably going to be situations that the game's mechanics haven't got a clue how to handle and-or that the players can't or won't agree on how to resolve; and that's where the adjudication (and consistency) piece comes in.
No, I'm telling you that there is a calm and useful definition of metacurrency that you are completely ignoring in favour of, um, I don't even know what. It's got not a thing to do my subjective opinion at all. So maybe go do some reading about metacurrency and come back, IDK. Or don't, I'm not fussy, but leave off telling me I don't know what I'm talking about because it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions.
Another game I never played or read, but fair enough. People like luck I suppose.
I never said you were wrong, like you have me. I've just expressed a different subjective opinion than you. My definition of meta-currency makes just as much sense as yours. If it has nothing to do with representation in the fiction, what does the "meta" mean in your definition?
To a point, sure. Same for things like spell points or slots, and magic in general for all that: it's real in the setting, and the spell slots or points (and the martial powers) are simply different ways abstracting those setting realities into game-useful things. The perceived or real usefulness and quality of said abstraction varies, of course, depending on the user and-or observer at the time; hence many discussions here.
Thank you! This is what I'm talking about.To a point, sure. Same for things like spell points or slots, and magic in general for all that: it's real in the setting, and the spell slots or points (and the martial powers) are simply different ways abstracting those setting realities into game-useful things. The perceived or real usefulness and quality of said abstraction varies, of course, depending on the user and-or observer at the time; hence many discussions here.
I think the meta/not-meta difference lies in which "direction" it's going: if you're taking an in-setting element and somehow abstracting it, it's not meta (which covers the Force mechanics in SW), but if you're taking an out-of-setting element (it's Joe's birthday today so I'll give his character +1 on every roll tonight) and adding it in then it's meta all day long. Pretty much every mechanic I've ever seen that gives or allows a die re-roll after the result of the first roll is known falls into the latter category.
Sure, but the point of a relatively lightweight and robust resolution system is to just get to the resolution, and not worry too much about the input parameters. There’s always corner cases, but ideally they’re minimized.
