Let's Talk About Metacurrency

[Micah Sweet]

I think it qualifies as meta if you use, say, an encounter calculator to make an appropriate encounter for the adventure, as opposed to only ever designing something with the fiction in mind. Does that make your XP budget a metacurrency?

I don't know. I don't use an XP calculator. All my encounters are ultimately based on what makes plausible sense to be there in the setting, either in my own judgement of that of the rules I'm using (like encounter tables).

 

[Bill Zebub]

So I think this is the main issue with discussion about this. To me, there’s no discernible difference between hit points and expertise dice.

The main difference from my point of view is not the "meta" meaning, it's the "currency". You (or your character) don't directly choose to spend hit points.

And my input was not about the philosophy of meta-mechanics, but about the game play of spending resources.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I do find it interesting that some folks do not want an intrusion into the fiction by an outside, or meta, force -- EXCEPT the GM. The GM role is entirely meta. The GM does not exist in the fiction, and has full control over the fiction. So everything the GM does is meta. Yet there is a perception of "cheating" if any of that meta authority passes to the players. I find that fascinating.

At least to me, it is because as a player I want to be focusing to the PoV of the character, and make decisions that the character would be making and not some meta decisions. But like you say, the GM's role is completely different to begin with and these concerns do not apply.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I like to think that metacurrency is the sort of thing that makes people believe in the supernatural (whether that's magic, God, ESP, whatever.)

"I couldn't understand it...one second I swear the dragon's fire was about to engulf me and then...and then...somehow I wasn't burned."
"Dude, some god interceded on your behalf."
"That's what I was thinking, too. Who is the god of metagaming, again? It must have been him."
"There's so many, it's hard to keep them straight. Lanefan the Beatific, I think."
"I'm going to sacrifice a goat to him."

 

[Reynard]

I like to think that metacurrency is the sort of thing that makes people believe in the supernatural (whether that's magic, God, ESP, whatever.)

"I couldn't understand it...one second I swear the dragon's fire was about to engulf me and then...and then...somehow I wasn't burned."
"Dude, some god interceded on your behalf."
"That's what I was thinking, too. Who is the god of metagaming, again? It must have been him."
"There's so many, it's hard to keep them straight. Lanefan the Beatific, I think."
"I'm going to sacrifice a goat to him."

There is an interesting question: what if metacurrency can only be refreshed or gained by actions by the characters in the fiction? is it still metacurrency? (Yes, this is leading us toward that worst of all discussions: Are Force Points Meta Currency?")

 

[Scribe]

There is an interesting question: what if metacurrency can only be refreshed or gained by actions by the characters in the fiction? is it still metacurrency? (Yes, this is leading us toward that worst of all discussions: Are Force Points Meta Currency?")

I think it still is, almost certainly.

I think there is a major distinction between ones that forcibly alter the narrative, ones that just fuel/balance class abilities, ones like luck tokens, or ones which provide a currency to the DM.

Not all of these metacurrencies, are the same in intent or impact.

 

[payn]

I do think it is probably worth differentiating some of the broad categories of metacurrency: currency that lets the player alter the outcome of rolls or at least their probable outcomes; currency that gives players some sort of authorial control (like cart full of straw); currency used to power abilities or other features; and then any or all of those, but in the GM's hands.

Our Fading Suns game has meta-currency points based on landing critical success, but failures give points to the GM. The GM had built up a decent amount of points. We got into a significant combat (not necessarily in difficulty, just the ending of a particular thread we were working on). During the combat the GM burned through most of them trying to turn failed rolls into hits. It wasnt terribly exciting use of MC, IMO.

When I GM with MC I tend to look for interesting narrative hurdles to add to situations as opposed to rerolls or +X thumb on the scale of checks. From a player perspective, rerolls and weighted adjustments feel good because you can emphasize your interests. From the GM side, it always seems entirely mechanical and kind of a let down. (Also, it seems a little adversarial as mentioned earlier in the thread.)

As an example, lets say the PCs are in combat with a spell caster in a library. Spell caster uses burning hands, but misses the PC. GM could spend a MC token to reroll the attack, or as I prefer, they spend the MC and start a bookcase on fire. Now, there is an entirely new dimension to the combat. Maybe the PCs care about this library and need to extinguish the flames while fighting the caster. Or, maybe they dont care, but the room is now filling with smoke, making it more challenging and dangerous to stay there.

At any rate, I know you were asking about differentiating MC, and I think the mechanical vs narrative or both are considerations on both sides of the screen as you asked here. Some folks like symmetrical application, but it appears im not one of them.

 

[Reynard]

Our Fading Suns game has meta-currency points based on landing critical success, but failures give points to the GM. The GM had built up a decent amount of points. We got into a significant combat (not necessarily in difficulty, just the ending of a particular thread we were working on). During the combat the GM burned through most of them trying to turn failed rolls into hits. It wasnt terribly exciting use of MC, IMO.

When I GM with MC I tend to look for interesting narrative hurdles to add to situations as opposed to rerolls or +X thumb on the scale of checks. From a player perspective, rerolls and weighted adjustments feel good because you can emphasize your interests. From the GM side, it always seems entirely mechanical and kind of a let down. (Also, it seems a little adversarial as mentioned earlier in the thread.)

As an example, lets say the PCs are in combat with a spell caster in a library. Spell caster uses burning hands, but misses the PC. GM could spend a MC token to reroll the attack, or as I prefer, they spend the MC and start a bookcase on fire. Now, there is an entirely new dimension to the combat. Maybe the PCs care about this library and need to extinguish the flames while fighting the caster. Or, maybe they dont care, but the room is now filling with smoke, making it more challenging and dangerous to stay there.

At any rate, I know you were asking about differentiating MC, and I think the mechanical vs narrative or both are considerations on both sides of the screen as you asked here. Some folks like symmetrical application, but it appears im not one of them.

Yeah, I like the idea of spending metacurrency to add complications, for sure.

But sometimes you also just really want to deliver the smack down and the dice aren't cooperating...

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, I like the idea of spending metacurrency to add complications, for sure.

But sometimes you also just really want to deliver the smack down and the dice aren't cooperating...

Isn't that just the way things go sometimes though? You have to take the bitter with the sweet IMO.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I like to think that metacurrency is the sort of thing that makes people believe in the supernatural (whether that's magic, God, ESP, whatever.)

"I couldn't understand it...one second I swear the dragon's fire was about to engulf me and then...and then...somehow I wasn't burned."
"Dude, some god interceded on your behalf."
"That's what I was thinking, too. Who is the god of metagaming, again? It must have been him."
"There's so many, it's hard to keep them straight. Lanefan the Beatific, I think."
"I'm going to sacrifice a goat to him."

So I don't use luck points or inspiration in my D&D, but I actually used something like you describe. (And yeah, it was meta.) We have divine favour points that can be gained by praying and making sacrifices in the temples. You would pray for a favour towards a certain task from an appropriate deity, and they would bless you with couple of favour points. Then you could use those points for rerolls when pursuing the blessed task.

I did this is I wanted to emulate the sort of polytheism, where the divine is part of the lives of the laypeople, and they pray to different gods depending on their needs.